Talk:2008 French Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I intend to review this page. Will try and get it done as quickly as possible. Alan16 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start GA review.

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources
No problems. All sources concur with WP:RS.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way
Although the phrase "Renault driver Nelson Piquet, Jr., who was in his first year in Formula One, and had endured a tough start to the season" sticks a bit. "tough" sounds POV, even if it is not intend as such. As the article has passed I have changed this. Apart from this it is all in concordance with WP:NPOV.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid.
No problems here.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
No problems here either. The majority of edits are positive.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
No problems here.

It passes the quick fail criteria relatively easily then.

Good article criteria

Well written.
The article is very well written, with perfect spelling and grammar. The wikilinks are also appropriately placed. Formatting is correct. Follows the Manual of Style well. The jargon used in the article is explained per WP:JARGON. The only exception to this is the second paragraph in the lead. WP:LEAD states that the lead should not explain important information that will be explained later in the article. Therefore I will remove the second paragraph as the detail here is excessive and unnecessary for the lead as it is better explained later on in the article.
Factual accuracy and reliable sources.
All sources are properly formatted as inline citations. All the source are reliable per WP:RS. All the text taken from the sources is properly formatted in either inverted commas or as a block quote, with each being of the appropriate size: the text in inverted commas not being too long, and the text in the block quotes not being too short.
No original research.
No original research in the article, merely a stating of the facts. It's lack of original research, per WP:NOR, is one if its best atributes.
Broad coverage without digression.
This is not an issue here. The article is focused on the race and states the effect on the various championships (constructors/drivers) without going into too much detail. Doesn't talk about races after this, so it doesn't digress. It is very well written in this sense - it deals with this race, and this races effects: period. Covers the race in good detail, so coverage is good.
Neutral point of view.
As mentioned earlier - the article is a mere stating of the facts in a well presented way. No problems with WP:NPOV.
Stable
This article is very stable - with little to no reverting or undoing. All edits are constructive. No problems here.
Images
All the images in the article pass the fair use rationale. They are also nicely placed to complement the article. No problems with the images.

Conclusion
The article is well written, and apart from the two minor changes I made, complies with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. It is well referenced, with a large number of reliable sources covering all bases without being excessive. To improve the article I would think about adding sources to the lead, but apart from that it is a brilliant example of a "Good Article" on Wikipedia. Great work.

Review conducted by Alan16 (talk) on 9 August 2009.

I would disagree that that paragraph needed to removed from the lead, as I think it was important to allow the lead to give an adequate summary of the article. In my mind the lead is now too short and lacking in information. As the article is about a race, is seems fair that the article should detail the race in the lead, otherwise (as it stands now) it is just results. From WP:LEAD (and I think this is the bit you picked up on): It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Räikkönen's exhaust pipe problem needs to be in the lead, and it needs to be presented in the context of the race. Aptery gial 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of F1 GA do not contain detailed information in the lead. And although Räikkönen's exhaust problem was slightly notable, it did not need all the information that surrounded it. It is perhaps worthy of a sentence added to either of the paragraphs, but that paragraph goes against WP:LEAD."Räikkönen and Massa both made a clean start. Renault's Fernando Alonso, who started third, was overtaken by Trulli and BMW Sauber driver Robert Kubica. The front three of Räikkönen, Massa and Trulli maintained their positions through the first round of pit stops. On lap 30, Räikkönen led Massa by six and a half seconds, and Trulli by 30 seconds." (diff here). All that stuff is unnecessary in the lead. It is simply too much detail. And a lot of the rest is as well - it talks about Trulli fending off Kovalinen (sp), something else which is not notable. It is all in more detail later on. I'll try and add a sentence. Apart from that, the rest of the review - fair enough? Alan16 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rest of the review, but I don't agree with your take on the lead. I think a certain amount of detail is necessary, and I don't think what we had before is going overboard. Can you point out the majority of F1 GAs that don't go into that kind of detail? Only speaking from the 8 I've written the level of detail in this one was pretty standard. Aptery gial 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - it is actually 50 50 on a closer look. As you have the experience with it, re add it if you want, I wont lose sleep over it. I feel there was too much info, but perhaps you were right. I think it is probably worth noting that it would pass GA review either way, so feel free to add. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Good review, and I really can't find much to disagree with you on. Those sentences you pointed out in the main body of the article do indeed seem to be POV. I just didn't want to add the paragraph back in to the lead if if was a condition of the pass, but I've done so now. Thanks, Aptery gial 06:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]