# Talk:2015 24 Hours of Le Mans

The schedule, specifically the chart, was removed from this article initially because Wikipedia is not a directory.  As the date and time of scrutineering have zero effect on the race, it is irrelevant to need to list a schedule for this part of the event.  Likewise, the time of warm-up and even the time of the test session are not relevant to the race.  Brief mentions of the date, start time, and length of practice, qualifying, and the race are the key elements and do not justify the existence of the rest of the chart.  These can be mentioned quite easily in prose. The359 (Talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@The359: Table has now been removed from the article. MWright96 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 24 Hours of Le Mans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Haxwell (talk · contribs) 19:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this article is good, however, the section on the Race itself is too long. There is another Good Article on a similar race: 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans. In that article, they break the Race section into sections for the Start, Night, Morning, and Finish. Perhaps you could do that here, too. That's my only issue.

@Haxwell: Added the sub-sections per your suggestion. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Haxwell and MWright96: It's been over a month with no movement here. Any updates? Or should we put this back in the queue? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Putting it back in the queue per above. Wizardman 15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 24 Hours of Le Mans/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I believe this article is of, or exceeds, the Good Article standards. Suggest sending it to FAC. Passing.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)