# Talk:2012 Brazilian Grand Prix

Well, first of all: Hello! I feel that calling this article a "stub" by Wiki Project-F1 standards is quite unfair. It has a detailed discription of both quali and race, full results and so forth. Also, there are a lot of references. I therefore assessed it to B. I hope you will agree? I would like to bring this up to GA-standards, since I already put quite a lot of work into it and I feel it's a race that deserves a Good Article. I have therefore upgraded its importance status. Ranking it mid is in accordance with the given standards (title decider). I would even rank it high (due to the quality of the race), but I'll leave that open to debate. Most importantly, who wants to help me achieve a GA status? We can get in touch and split the workload.
What I feel needs to be done includes:

More background (Points needed for title, some input over what the title contenders said prior to race weekend etc.) Done.
Aftermath (After-season controversy, press reaction to the race etc.) Done.
More references
Photos (I've already sent a request to use photos to a Portuguese flickr user) Done.
Thanks in advance for answers and help! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A big thank you to those who participated in the peer review! (User:Tvx1, User:QueenCake and User:Csisc). I tried to include as many of your suggestions as possible. Unfortunately, I have so far not been successful in finding more pictures. I believe though that the ones that are there are quite good, considering we have the start and Hamilton's retirement. Please let me know if you are satisfied with the improvements. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I did not find any information on flood rates. Any idea were to look? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 20:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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): 
Minor nitpick, but numbers between one and twelve need to be spelled out (except turn numbers).
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: 
The only problem with the article is that Wikiproject Brazil rates it as a stub. Good Article Criteria prohibits any passing of articles that have been rated as a stub.--Nascar king 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! :) I don't believe that anyone from the Brazil Project ever took a look at this article. I also doubt they are even aware that the Brazilian Grand Prix is in their field of activity, I guess someone just put the box there... I could have changed their rating of the article, but it did not seem to be my place, since I am only active in the F1 project. But I guess it is quite clear that this article is not a stub, so we might as well change it. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Very well then. I hereby give 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.--Nascar king 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121017113142/http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/brazil_883/ to http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/brazil_883/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130212134521/http://www.formula1.com:80/results/season/2012/883/7155/live_timing_popup.html to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2012/883/7155/live_timing_popup.html#
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121121161722/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/headlines/2012/11/14086.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2012/11/14086.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130111030532/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/headlines/2012/10/13931.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2012/10/13931.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The first, third and fourth ones work; the second one doesn't, so I reverted it. DH85868993 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121125172545/http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20481809 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20481809
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)