Talk:2008 Chinese Grand Prix/GA1

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

Good job on producing a high-quality article that is well-referenced and has good pictures to illustrate itself, but some parts are still missing references.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Information inside the Infobox, such as course and distance, need references.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Pretty stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   Guideline not applicable. All are free images, no concern.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Awaiting improvements. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I often forget to do the infobox. The info about pole position and placings is covered in the sourced "Classification" section, fastest lap is covered in prose. Apterygial 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. It's now GA. This beats the fastest lap in the time of on-hold articles =) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My computer is a $100m windtunnel :). Thanks for the review. Apterygial 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]