Talk:Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid

Technical specifications

Do we need that ugly table there? I don't think so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so either. There are similar tables in Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid and Caterham CT03. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Full_Technical_Specification_tables. DH85868993 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture removed

Zwerg Nase, why did you remove the picture of the car? Is something wrong with it? Tvx1 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was identified as a copyright violation - see File:Mercedes_w06.jpg. DH85868993 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I was a little too over confident in people tagging their pictures with the right licence on flickr... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Podiums

Is there a consensus yet over the question if a double-podium counts as 2 or 1 podiums? If not, we should not list it in the infobox. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A more general discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Podiums_in_F1_car_infoboxes, but I don't believe a consensus has been reached. DH85868993 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:OPED

This article has a serious case of it. I might not get everything, so please bear with me. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

I don't believe that the current infobox picture is actually properly licenced on Commons. Could someone with mere expertise than me look into that? What led me to this most is the fact that the watermark in the original Facebook post is cut out in the uploaded version. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination

I am a little surprised to see this article nominated for GA (by an IP no less). I started a development section, but it is not yet finished, which in itself is a reason that this is far from being a GA. Furthermore, the season summary is mainly a "finished here, qualified here" affair, quite a dull sort of prose that needs work. The section should contain more than just results, because that is what the result table is for. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I wasn't sure whether you were aware that the reviewer is a very inexperienced editor with fewer than 20 Wikipedia edits prior to opening the review. I do hope F1foreverF1 takes your advice. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: F1foreverF1 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Images: Pass - Suitable licensing for all images. Images in this article are from various sources.

• Perhaps the section on Design and development has one or two images.

Stable: Pass - very few edits in recent history.

Neutral: Pass - no dubious opinions evident.

Broad coverage: Pass - covers most things I would expect to see.

• It was worth providing Competitiveness and performance context to see how the car compared to its competitors.
• Season summary section was well elaborated with sources cited.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Pass - Appears thoroughly referenced to high quality sources

• Content matches with the high quality sources.

Well-written: On hold Basically fine.

• Design and development could elaborated further to improve the article.

Overall: Pass Nothing major, but some minor tweaks.

@F1foreverF1: Please read my comment on the articles talk page. This article is far from being GA, especially concerning the "Broad coverage" criterium. I would strongly recommend not to pass this review (which you do not appear to have done yet even though you wrote "pass" here). Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As I was advised to do, I'll be bold and close this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)