# Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round

This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 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  17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found.


### Checking against 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):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Well written, complies with key MoS elements.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Excellent coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable
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): 
Suitable images, licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I don't like quick passing articles and it might look like I'm not doing my job, but please believe me when I say that I think these articles are flawless. I spent my time reading this one and couldn't find anything to point out, so it meets the criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)