Jump to content

Talk:Jenson Button: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
 
(128 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:MWright96|MWright96]] [[User talk:MWright96|(talk)]]|page=2|subtopic=Sports and recreation||oldid=1000820586}}
{{WikiProject Formula One}}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=GA|listas=Button, Jenson|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|sports-priority=mid|sports-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Formula One|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Channel Islands|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Motorsport|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Somerset|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject British Motorsport}}
{{WikiProject NASCAR|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sports Car Racing}}
}}
{{todo}}


{{Talk:Jenson Button/GA2}}
== format etc ==

I've added the 2005 season to the table at the bottom, but this doesn't seem to match (m)any of the other drivers - should this be in this format? Happy to redo if necessary, someone let me know in here... [[User:NickF|NickF]] 22:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Continuation ==

Jenson and teammate Takuma Sato were DQ'd for underweight cars...

...at San Marino.

== 100th Race Start ==
Button will start his 100th race start in the 2005-China race. But according to wikipedia when doing the math by adding all Button race starts it would be his 101st race start in China as Button has been listed as Ret instead of DNS for this year 2005-USA race. [[User:Andreasu|Andreasu]] 03 October 2005 12:02

== FHM Quotes ==

I haven't got the exact quotes, but Jenson said something about women drivers in F1 to FHM. Does anyone have the actual quotes, i can't remeber them, i don't read FHM and I got this of my motorsport info sources. [[User:Duke toaster|Duke toaster]] 18:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:25, 14 November 2024

GA Review

[edit]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]
Agree with this. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

[edit]