Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   If you want to pursue FA status, you need to flesh out the prose a bit. It's good enough for a GA, though.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A few more third party references will be needed for an FA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I would recommend requesting a peer review at FA level if you are aiming for FA status. Your hard work has paid off; you now can claim credit for another of Wikipedia's good articles. I had fun reviewing the article and working with you. Congratulations! Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

I'm going to take it section by section. All unsigned comments are mine (so don't forget to sign your posts! ) in order to reduce clutter. Finished tasks can be streaked with a strike-through line.

Lead and infobox

• Since the information isn't repeated later in the article, I need references for the second and third sentences in the lead: "It was the sixteenth race of the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season and began at 3 p.m. EDT. In the United States, it was televised live on TNT and radio coverage was broadcast on Performance Racing Network starting at 2 p.m. EDT." Also, were both broadcasts begun at 2 pm, or just the radio? That needs to be clarified as well.
  • Done; I reworded it like on 2010 Showtime Southern 500. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Second paragraph, last sentence: define "caution".
  • I [[linked]] it. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Was going to ask for a race summary as well, but the lead you are prepping in your sandbox should take care of that.
  • Do you think it is good enough, I'm finished with it. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 22:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should be a mention about how this is a road course race, (one of two in the season, correct?) as most NASCAR races are on speedways. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are currently 2 Cup races on road courses. Royalbroil 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This should be mentioned in the lead.
          •  Done :) --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 20:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Flagicons should not be used in the infobox in this case, as they emphasize the drivers' home states. Citing MOS:ICON, I don't think knowing the drivers' home states is important nor relevant.
  • Upon further research, I found Template:NASCAR race season infobox. I think it would be good to discuss the relevance of the parameters "pole state", "most state", and "first state" at WT:NASCAR.
    • Okay will be removed! :) --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• Cleaned it up. How does it look?
  • Good, good job! :) --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practice and qualifying

• Since there were three practice sessions, I think a more appropriate header name would be "Practices and qualifying"
  •  Done ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference number 1 does not support the statements referencing it. As you can see, it only provides info on the next race. This probably needs to be fixed on other pages as well.
  •  Done Only to this page. Will fix rest of GA's later. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 23:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you spot the error here? During qualifying, forty-six cars were entered, but only forty-three was able to race because of NASCAR's qualifying procedure. :).
  • No, also you have new messages at your talk page.--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was->were. Fixed in linked copyedit below.
• Not sure what Kurt Busch qualified third after having problems through the esses means (last paragraph).
  • I guess remove because of no reference, well the TV said it. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done; copyedited the whole section. There is one unsourced statement that is tagged.
      • Haha.....Hummmmm a citiation for that, well it would have to be dry because NASCAR cannot practice, qualify, or race in wet conditions. Again *(giggle)*. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then find a source that says that NASCAR cannot practice, etc. in wet conditions .
          • I removed it, ots not really notible--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race

• Who is Tim Boeve?
  • I don't know, I just know that he said either the command or prayer--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    • A quick Google bring up this.
      • Okay so what do you want me to do? Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
        • I found a better source.
          • ...and done.
• Most of the summary is supported by one reference, number 19. I need one or two more third party sources.
  • That is one thing I do not understand: What are third party references? This is about the only one with that much infomration. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third party sources means not NASCAR. Per your post on my talk, it looks like you found a good one. And it is fine if the reliable third party ref doesn't have as much info. That is why you have the primary one from NASCAR.com. The others serve as an additional means of verification.
      • Where I found that one reference and placed it is some places are we finished with this? --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We'll see. We're not done 'till this passess or fails.
          • Nascar, you could use Racing-Reference.info - but even better would be race coverage from Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc. In this case I think NASCAR's website is fine to use for certain parts like statistics since there should be no problems with meeting WP:SELFPUB. Royalbroil 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would take RoyalBroil's suggestions; I need at least one or two more third party sources in the race section. Right now, the only third party source is reference number 3 at the very end of the section, discounting NASCAR Europe.
              • If I can I will, if I don't well I quess I can't. As of now I'm on the fourth page and nothing.--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do you think anything is valuable on this? --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, most definitely :). The source looks reliable and is owned by ESPN, so I'd say give it a go.
                    • It was the only one I could find reliable. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 04:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • OK, that's enough. This article is definitely GA quality (for FA, we need more sources (and fleshed-out prose)!!!) I'll give it one more read before passing to see if there are any remaining issues.
                        • Maybe after this you can help me create WP:NASCAR's first Featured Article. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much every sentence should be referenced so there is no doubt that the events actually happened. I know that you are putting citations at the end of paragraphs, but after you find more references, it would be nice to do that. Another option would be to put all references at the very beginning of the section. Here is an example. This saves you from referencing every sentence and confirms to the reader that everything is sourced.
  • The link you gave me does not have the refs at the beginning of the paragraph. There are not a lot of racing refs like the Lap-by Lap, but I will look. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... yes it does: "The specifications below are from Apple's "tech specs" page[9] or developer notes,[10] except where noted."
      • I always mess up on the references: like on my first article, User:Royalbroil told me to add the refs to the end when I put it before, while now your telling me the opposite. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you put the refs at the very beginning like in Mac Pro and you were told otherwise?
          • Yes. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 17:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well not exactly like MacPro I put ut at the beginning of every paragraph.--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I was looking for something like Mac Pro… anyway, I asked RoyalBroil about it.
              • I seen the edit, as I am wathcing his talk page, and I am completely fine adding the refs at the end of every sentence. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've always seen references at the end of each sentence - that's how I do it and how I'd expect to see here. See Alan Kulwicki for a NASCAR example of what's close to Featured Article level. You'll notice an occasional thought that extends into 2 or 3 sentences. In those cases, the reference has been added at the last sentence of the group. I think you're thinking about the table in the article. Usually a reference that covers all or part of a table is placed at the first piece of information which came from that source. My opinion is that the best source for statistics in a race results table would be the official source - NASCAR. Royalbroil 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That makes sense. In that case, the current referencing looks fine at first glance.