Talk:2000 German Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts

As a motorsports junkie, I'm all too familiar with this race. With it being Rubens Barrichello's first career win and the lunatic crossing the track that led to the Tikleinizing of the Hockenheimring. Just doing a quick look at the article, I can say the chances look great.--Nascar king 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for level 4 subsections

While this wouldn't be a deal-breaker, the article could use some level 4 subsections in the race subsection. One I think would really work is one that directs people to the disgruntled Mercedes-Benz employee who ran across the track near turn 2.--Nascar king 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article criteria point 1

Reading through the article, I found an inconsistency in spelling out numbers vs. just using numerals. The lead paragraph reads "The race, contested over 45 laps, was won by Ferrari driver Rubens Barrichello after starting from eighteenth position. Mika Häkkinen finished second for the McLaren team with team-mate David Coulthard third." As a journalist outside of Wikipedia, I've been taught that you spell out numbers between one and twelve. Anything after that is supposed to use numerals (i.e 18th). So if someone would go through the article and fix those, that would address the inconsistency problem.

In the quote box in the practice and qualifying subsection, 10 should be spelled out. Also in that section, the thumbnail reads "David Coulthard (pictured in 2009) who took pole position in his McLaren." The word who should be removed from it.

In the race subsection, the pictures and thumbnails of Rubens Barrichello and Mika Häkkinen should trade spots so it makes chronological sense.--Nascar king 15:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

~~So Wikipedia has a different take on the numbers. So disregard the point I had on spelling out numbers greater than nine~~. Point on this withdrawn. Sorry if this caused any confusion.--Nascar king 16:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grade so far

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Take care of the inconsistencies.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Assuming that GrandPrix.com is not directly connected to Formula 1, then this article does not use too many primary sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article stays on topic and addresses the man running across the track without going too into it.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It follows the neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The edit history indicates no edit wars in the last few years.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Address the issues I pointed out with the captions.
Overall:
Pass:
The article has some minor issues, but they're not the kind that would be considered deal breakers. So I hereby give 2000 German Grand Prix a pass. But I would like to see someone calculate the 107% time. That's hard for me to figure out, and I follow Formula 1 religiously.--Nascar king 16:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]