Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Baku GP2 Series round article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2016 Baku GP2 Series round has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 27, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from 2016 Baku GP2 Series round appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found.
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Excellent coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Suitable images, licensed and captioned.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I don't like quick passing articles and it might look like I'm not doing my job, but please believe me when I say that I think these articles are flawless. I spent my time reading this one and couldn't find anything to point out, so it meets the criteria. Well done! JAGUAR 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)