Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs ) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar) : b (MoS for lead , layout , word choice , fiction , and lists ) :
Numbers between one and twelve need to be spelled out.
It is factually accurate and verifiable .
a (reference section ) : b (citations to reliable sources ) : c (OR ) :
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 :
Pass :
Fix the issues with the numbers, and it's a pass.--Nascar king 17:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe I got them all. Thank you for the swift review! :) Zwerg Nase (talk ) 09:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I hereby give 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.--Nascar king 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [ reply ]
Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk ) 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [ reply ]
I made some further fixes, mostly keeping in line with WP:OLINK , and breaking up the Background section as it involved different topics. This article got GA fairly quickly, I figured a push in the right direction towards FA wouldn't hurt. Doesn't seem like it needs much work. Twirlypen (talk ) 10:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC) [ reply ]