This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Formula One Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Italy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Italian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will start to review this article soon. 333-blue 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some of "-" needs to be changed into "–" in references (also called "in-line citations").

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   It looks OK.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Yes, of course.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Relieable, from the F1 website.

   C. It contains no original research:

   But add more in-depth third-party sources will be better.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   [1], "the third person" said that it is OK.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes, all about the race.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Less unnecessary detail/details.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Yes, pretty fair.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable, only article expanding in the most recent edits.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   It looks OK.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Of course, they are about the race.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Only a few problems needed to be solved, others are fine!

@333-blue: I've taken action on the copyvio source and hoped it's less of a problem. Z105space (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still 67.2%. 333-blue 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, and yet I have removed the source from the page. I strongly suggest that the speedy deletion be dropped. Z105space (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fairer to just let an admin to decide it. 333-blue 13:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short dashes have been replaced with longer ones where possible. Z105space (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yap, the only problems are solved, this article is passed. 333-blue 09:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it does not satisfy the G12 criteria, specifically the "there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution" part. I would also add that the part of the article being identified as a copyright violation is a table of results of a sporting event - by its very nature, it's difficult to make such a table look very different from the source material while maintaining factual accuracy. DH85868993 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because.... it falls under the fair use classification, allowing the use of copyrighted material for educational and informative purposes. The material is not being used for commercial purposes. It is not a "highly original" work; it is, rather, statistical grand prix data in tabular format. This tabular data represents a meager 5% of the article text; 95% of the article is original content contributed by Wikipedians. Finally, its use does nothing to diminish the value of the copyright-holder's content; if anything, it only serves to better inform people about the sport of Formula One, and motor racing in general, adding to the fan base. --BillCook (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]