Talk:Greg Moore (racing driver)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 13:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. I typically go through and identify any issues, and then once those are addressed, I will run through a checklist to make sure nothing has been missed. Canada Hky (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Thanks for nominating this article. I definitely watched Moore race on TV when I was growing up in Canada. This was an interesting article to read and review.

No copyright issues / duplications detected.
Greg Moore Racing is a redirect back to Moore's driver page, so this link can be removed.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a fair use picture of Moore for the infobox?
- Added one of him in racing overalls. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, "He was the first driver to be killed..." - that phrasing would imply that it had been a long time, when it was only three races earlier, which would seem to be fairly close together. I would suggest changing the wording to reflect this, unless that reflects the true fatality rate on the series at the time.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In "early life", 'played goalie five times a week and did go-karting...' is oddly specific and reads somewhat akwardly. Could it be streamlined to say he participated in both? And in the same paragraph "forward Paul Kariya" may be better as "Future professional Paul Kariya" to establish why Kariya is notable without having to click through.
- Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In "Junior career" - "Moore was voted rookie of the year for the second consecutive season" - this phrasing is weird without immediately understanding that it was at a different level. "Moore captured rookie of the year honors at this tier after advancing at the start of the season" or something similar may be clearer.
- Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Since he was 17" - is this because he was 17, or a minor, or on a provisional license?
- It was because Moore was 17 at the time he entered Indy Lights. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currency for the dollar amount quoted?
- US dollars. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph of this section - this is the first we hear of his engineer's financial strain - is there further detail?
- No; have removed Challis' financial trouble. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In "1996" - what does "unlapped" mean? Could this be linked?
- Added a wikilink. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In '1999' - "Moore said afterward he learned from Alex Zanardi to accept finishing a race without a victory" - this sentence doesn't make sense, as it immediately follows a victory. Could the quote be checked or additional context added?
- Done MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In "Death", for this sentence "The impact, registered at 154 g0 (1,510 m/s2) by the car's black box,[79] split it in two, scattered a large amount of debris as the open-cockpit compartment seating the driver spun luridly four times and disintegrated.[69][81]" This is wordy and needs to be clarified. Is it the black box or the car that split into two? How does something spin "luridly"? And combined with the following sentence - did the cockpit compartment separate from the car itself?
- The car split into two. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the "Death" section doesn't really relate to Moore at all, and could be removed.
- Have put it into a footnote. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Jack Diamond Award for? Could be explained in the text for clarity.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The references all look good. Properly and consistently formatted. A spot check confirmed accuracy and that there was no plagiarism issues.

I am going to put this on hold, I am happy to answer any questions that come up from it, or discuss anything if my comments are not clear. Canada Hky (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Canada Hky: Every one of the queries raised above have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for that, all looks good! Canada Hky (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review via Template[edit]

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.
a (reference section): 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 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):
Overall: Thank you for the time and effort you put into nominating and improving the article. I am going to promote this to GA status, as I believe it meets the criteria.
Pass/Fail: Canada Hky (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]