# Talk:2010 Singapore Grand Prix

In Free Practice section, first says that Alonso crashed at turn 17, then later one says someone else crashed in the same spot as Alonso's crash...at turn 18. Which is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.249.112 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 
Alonso ran wide at turn 17 during the second practice session and then slid down the access road at the next corner; this means that he did not crash during the free practice session. My apologies you had to wait 62 months for a reply. Z105space (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Singapore Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll return the favour and review this one :) Probably tomorrow. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay, RL has the habit of catching up with me at unexpected moments...

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  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): 

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/Fail: 

What needs to be dealt with:
Lead and infobox:

Official name and weather both need sources.
 Done
Optional: If you can find info on this, add an attendance number.
I am unable to find any attendance figures for the race.
Background:

Optional: I do not quite understand why you give the constructors in the order that you do.
They are place in order of their car's highest number assigned to them
Once more, I was fooled by my print out of the article, where Red Bull was first and McLaren third.
Second paragraph: In the second to last sentence you should give the names of the drivers who have won races. Because now it reads like you compare teams and drivers, with Massa even being a driver of one of the mentioned teams.
 Done
Practice and qualifying:

End of fourth paragraph: Shouldn't it say that the Mercedes sandwiched Kubica, not the other way round? But apart from that, I would prefer a less colloquial phrasing than "to sandwich"...
Sentence has been altered.
Race:

Alonso caption: I think you should stick with one phrase (Chelem or Slam), since the term is confusing enough as it is.
Amended to say Grand Chelem only.
Post-race:

The part about what Ross Brawn said is quite confusing. While both the statement that he is happy and that he would sack any other driver than Schumacher are both in the source, you should probably make it more clear how he can feel both at the same time. Right now, it sounds like a contradiction.
This sentence has been reworded .
You should re-phrase the beginning of the last paragraph. Right now, it reads like Webber increased his lead over Alonso, which is of course not the case. He increased his lead over the second-placed man, who now happened to be Alonso.
Re-phrased.
That's it from me, very good work so far :) On hold for seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: I have dealt with the above issues. Is there anything else? Z105space (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Z105space:Nope, that's it. Congrats, it's a pass :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: Thanks! :) Z105space (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)