# Talk:2010 European Grand Prix

Contents of Valenciagate scandal that is salvageable, which is possibly none of it, should be merged into here. One drive-through penalty is not worth this level of coverage. --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's covered just fine. The third paragraph of the race write-up and the second paragraph of the post-race outcome give enough detail. The "Valenciagate" article is little more than a piece of propaganda intended as an attack on Hamilton. I don't see any way it could be re-written without being redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge the useful parts, which as has been mooted, may amount to nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge here. Ignoring all the other problems with the Valenciagate (ugh!) article, there's not enough content to justify having a separate article. This article's still under 32kb, and would have to hit at least 50kb before we started thinking about branching off. If we can fit the rather more controversial 1997 European Grand Prix into a single article, then this relatively minor event will fit into this page. 4u1e (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep them separate ~ The problem was not Hamilton, but why the safety car was incredibly deployed onto the circuit in front of Hamilton and behind Vettel, which in other words means that rules in F1 are unfair and badly written. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason for a separate article that can easily be written into this article, and this is not the deletion discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 European Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
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): 
"by the stewards for exceeding the safety car-in lap time" - misplaced hyphen?
"After running the F-duct device" - can this be linked to anything?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
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: 

I managed to make a couple of points this time, but they were so minor that it won't of course affect the fact that this has passed with flying colours. It meets the criteria as it is well written, comprehensive and comfortable to read. JAGUAR  16:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)