# Talk:2024 FIA GT World Cup

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 FIA GT World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: EnthusiastWorld37 (talk · contribs) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I will try to review this article over the next few days. Hopefully I can be helpful in this process. No obvious immediate failures like cleanup banners. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I will do a spot check on sources and review the images later. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
There are a small number of outstanding issues remaining, but all of them can probably be easily addressed in a short amount of time, so I feel comfortable saying this will pass. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the background section is mostly good, but with a couple of issues. "It was held at the 22-turn ... was co-organised by the SRO Motorsports Group" reads to me as a run-on sentence and I would suggest breaking this up into its component parts. "All cars used a wholly sustainable fuel made from second-generation bio components sourced from bio waste for the first time in the event's history" feels like it could be clearer. Had previous events seen some (but not all) cars use sustainable fuels? Was this the first time that all cars had used any type of sustainable fuel or just this specific kind of sustainable fuel? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the background section is good, although I made a small copyedit as it was slightly ambiguous whether there were four manufacturers or four drivers the previous year (although it was fairly obvious what was meant from context). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I made a slight copyedit to the opening sentence of the first paragraph of the practice and qualifying section. MOS:SAMESURNAME seems to apply here, so sentences like "Vanthoor's car was undamaged despite running wide at the hairpin with 16 minutes left" need to be changed to clarify whom is being referred to. "Push lap" is somewhat esoteric phrasing but is probably relatively clear to anyone this deep into the body of the article. I changed "cresting a hill at San Francisco Hill" to "going over a crest a San Francisco Hill". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I have rephrased "most teams chose to split qualifying into two parts so they could use slick tyres again" to "most teams chose to make two qualifying attempts so they could change onto new slick tyres between their flying laps", as this seems to align more closely with what is described in the cited sources. I also rewrote the sentence regarding Engels' lap times for clarity. Otherwise the second paragraph of the practice and qualifying section seems to be fine. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
"It transpired to be the only overtake in the leading group of drivers and no driver gained one place from their starting position" needs to be clarified. Is this referring only to the first lap or to the entire qualifying race? The previous sentence said that Fuoco passed Engels, so this seems like a contradiction. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Otherwise the qualification race section is all good. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it necessary to state that the track surface was "soggy"? I think the mention of standing water should be enough, unless the sogginess is referring to something else. Was the water getting absorbed into the tarmac and causing to break apart or seep bitumen? One of the cited sources says the track surface was "soaking", although it doesn't clarify further if that just means "had a lot of standing water on it" or if it means that the water was influencing the constitution of the tarmac in some manner. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Do any sources clarify what problem Cairoli was suspected to have? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wasn't able to find the reason for Cairoli's retirement EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Otherwise the first paragraph of the main race section is fine. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
What did Marciello have to be circumspect about? It reads as if it's saying that he needed to be wary of the fact that his own car went faster than his competitor's car. It would also probably help here to clarify which cars Marciello and Fuoco were driving, even if it is stated earlier in the article. Otherwise the second paragraph of the main race section is all good. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I did a bit of copyeditting to the third paragraph of the main race section. Otherwise it's all good. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I think this passes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
There are a few minor concerns with the tables that wouldn't fail this article for GA but might prove to be roadblocks at FA, but really are broader discussions for WT:MOTOR. The first is the layout of the tables, which whilst fairly standard for motorsport articles exist in a somewhat ambiguous position regarding the intermingling of text and prose. The current consensus does seem to be to have classification tables at the end of each relevant section of prose, but having a separate classification appendix following the main body of the text including all the classification tables is often considered to comply better with the WP:MOS. Secondly there's the matter of MOS:FLAG regarding the teams. Since this is an FIA World Cup event the drivers can be considered national representatives and having the respective flags displayed would be considered standard, but I have to ask whether this is the case for the teams too? Overall I see no major issues with the layout, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The lead section is mostly fine, but there are two sentences which could be clearer from a MOS:INTRO perspective. I'm not sure how it would be best to rephrase "the Automobile General Association Macau-China, the event's promoter, appointed the motorsports organiser SRO Motorsports Group to form a grid", but whilst I can understand what this means I'm not sure it would be particularly clear to someone without existing background knowledge. I think the phrasing "form a grid" is probably the main issue here, although it could just be that this is a level of technical detail that isn't strictly necessary for the lead. Perhaps "The event was promoted by the Automobile General Association Macau-China who appointed SRO Motorsports Group as the organiser" would be better for the lead, with details about how SRO were involved in attracting entrants being reserved for the background section. Secondly, the sentence "the edition included two races: a 12-lap qualifying race to set the 16-lap main race's starting order" reads somewhat awkwardly, but can easily be rephrased to read more clearly. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I understand that teams having verbose sponsor-packed names is beyond the control of editors, but I have to question if the full names of these teams need to appear in running prose? If it's something relatively simple, like "Team WRT", then there isn't an issue, but when something like "TORO Racing powered by MCG" appears in running prose it can make it quite hard to tell where the proper noun begins and ends and can create garden path sentences. I would consider this more of an issue in the lead given MOS:INTRO and have no opposition to the full team names appearing in tables. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Passes.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Passes.
C. It contains no original research: 
This is a minor issue, but I can't find a source in the article for the Automobile General Association Macau-China being the event's promoter. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Having done some spot checks throughout the article, I'm not seeing any obvious original research. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No evidence that any of this was written by a large language model and Earwig doesn't seem to be detecting any obvious copyright violations. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
I don't see any glaring omissions here. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
There were a couple of cases where more detail from a source could have been included, and that could be a roadblock to this article reaching FA status, but it's still a largely complete overview. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Passes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Passes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No immediate evidence of recent edit warring in the page history. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All seems to pass. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I added alt text to the track map, which is necessarily quite lengthy due to the density of information contained in the map. Otherwise this all passes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I don't see any reason for this to fail. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@HumanBodyPiloter5: Have made changes to the article based on the above points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@EnthusiastWorld37:, thank you. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)