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

Hi, I'm a big fan of Formula One and I follow the Indy Car Series casually, so I know a little about the IMS, but not too much! This is also my first GA review, so please feel free to take issue with anything I write. I shall update this page once I have completed my review.--Midgrid(talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General

• The whole "history" section becomes a bit disjointed when it approaches the modern era. The headings jump from the 1960s to the 2000s, and the final three headings (NASCAR/IROC, F1, Moto GP) seem tacked on. I would recommend putting the history of the Indy 500/US open-wheel racing under one further subheading, with the other categories under a different subheading (e.g. other major racing series).
• I do not believe that the referencing is satisfactory: there is a heavy reliance on one source (reference [8]), which is not formatted correctly at the moment so I can't check it properly; statements like "It's a common misconception that the rules were "dumbed down" to what was called the "junkyard formula" to allow more entries during the depression" need more referencing to avoid violating WP:NPOV.
• The writing style needs tightening up: it's generally good, but often lapses into slight informality. The article could do with a thorough copy-edit (I can recommend the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which has helped me with my own GA nominations.--Midgrid(talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• There was more than one circuit architect, so the infobox template field should be changed from "architect" to "architect(s)".
• For the lap records in the infobox, is giving the 0 for the hour necessary, as all of the record times are under an hour?
• I like how the lead is written, but I would like to see auto racing explicitly mentioned and linked to earlier on, e.g. "The Indianapolis Motor Speedway, located in Speedway, Indiana (an enclave suburb of Indianapolis) in the United States, is a permanent auto racing oval track, famous for hosting the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race and the Brickyard 400" for the benefit of the layman.
• I would like to see citations for "The inaugural USGP race drew an estimated 225,000 spectators, setting a Formula One attendance record" and "Since August 19, 1909, 248 automobile races have taken place, with 137 separate drivers winning".--Midgrid(talk) 16:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

• As a general point, the references need to be consistently formatted. Many of them have fields missing from the ((citation)) template.
• Reference [1] needs to be filled out with the ((cite news)) template.
• I can't connect to reference [2]; please check that this link is working.
• Reference [6] needs to be filled out properly with the ((cite book)) template.
• Reference [8] currently points to a general website; all of these citations need to be changed to specific subpages within this site.
• Is reference [11] a reliable source?
• Reference [14] made my browser crash, please check this one!
• Reference [17] is dead.
• Is reference [21] a reliable source?
• Reference [22] is dead.
• Is reference [26] a reliable source?--Midgrid(talk) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Unfortunately, after reading this article in more detail, I feel that it does not meet GA standards with regards to referencing and writing style, and that it requires a significant amount of editing to attain this status. I would recommend a thorough copy-edit and an overhaul of the referencing, and perhaps a peer review, before nominating it again. Sorry to be harsh - I think that this could easily become a GA with a bit of work.--Midgrid(talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]