Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: SSSB (talk · contribs) 23:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 04:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Sainz made it back-to-back pole positions at the Singapore Grand Prix, qualifying ahead of Russell and Leclerc. This sentence is tricky to understand on its own as it's at the start of a new subsection. Please rephrase so it makes sense to a reader who hasn't read the previous section.  Done Prose is otherwise good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some issues with MOS:LINKING, though this isn't explicitly required by the GA criteria and I fixed most of it up when reviewing.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source spot check completed. All references used seem legitimate and reliable. Inline citations are present where needed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio detected
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged and valid.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please review image captions in line with MOS:CAP and MOS:CAPFRAG, for exampleThe Singapore Grand Prix was won by Carlos Sainz Jr. of Ferrari. (Pictured at the Austrian Grand Prix) It was the only Grand Prix not won by Red Bull Racing needs fixing up Done An image in the Opening Rounds subsection would be good to break the text up and mirror the other sections, though this isn't crucial Done
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues fixed and article ready to go SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Starting review. Nominator has 21% authorship. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@SSSB: Great work with this article. It's pretty much right to go pending my notes above. I'll put this on hold for 7 days so you can get it fixed up. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more time! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyRiver28 all requested changes have been made. SSSB (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.