Talk:2022 Bahrain Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Giraffer (talk · contribs) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. P.S. I am reviewing a lot of GANs, so expect initial remarks in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation Changes- Remove first para
Driver changes- Valtteri Bottas ... the end of 2021, with: Axe, both this and above relate more to the season as a whole.(and change the grammar of the remaining para, of course)
Partly done. I got rid of the first paragraph, but I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do with the second... I can cut the bit about Raikkonen if that's what you mean, but if the paragraph as a whole stays, Bottas' move should be mentioned, otherwise it gets confusing. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q3/Para 3- Mention Perez as well, as he is the only one left in the top ten.
Done Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add that Leclerc and Ferrari started leading the WDC, for the first and after this much time, and maybe how long they kept it in the season
Done, added a short paragraph (to the post race section; this isn't strictly about the race) about how long Ferrari would hold the championships for, and how long it was since they held either. These kind of things can be difficult to find a source for (i.e. nothing specifically states that Ferrari did not lead the WCC between 2018 and 2022), but since F1 race results are easily verifiable this should be self-evident. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add that Ferrari was ecstatic perhaps; that seemed big at the moment, maybe there are reliable sources for it too?
Did these teams say anything else?
Did any other teams say anything else? Add if anything important was said.
Done, the coverage of this win was surprisingly moderate in tone, but I've added in a few more celebratory quotes from Ferrari. I re-read the sources and think I covered all the main points that aren't just drivers regurgitating facts. All drivers do media interviews, but they are rarely given written coverage outside of the podium contenders. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are StatsF1 and f1destinations.com reliable?
Wikilink the ref sources everywhere or nowhere, per MOS:CONSISTENT
Use one of either Formula 1 or formula1.com, again per MOS:CONSISTENT
I'll do the spot-check later.
I've standardized the wikilinking and naming on all the references and replaced the f1destinations.com link. It was referring to a press release by the Bahrain International Circuit, which is the only source -- generally tracks count their own attendance, and it doesn't get reported on much (in this case at all). The BIC source isn't ideal but it's more reliable. I've changed the StatsF1 source to the official FIA results document. Giraffer (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffer:In general- Expand article wherever possible; add more detail wherever possible. It's a very well written article. I do not see any major isssues.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·