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

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I find nothing wrong with the article. I hereby give 2015 Chinese Grand Prix a pass. It's now a good article.--Nascar king 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]