Wikipedia

Talk:2009 Lenox Industrial Tools 301

Latest comment: 4 years ago by 97198 in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago248 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Lenox Industrial Tools 301/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hello. Thought I review this one to cut down the unreviewed backlog of sports noms while also keeping in mind that'd you're currently second with outstanding noms. If you have any comments/concerns, feel free to ping me here.

Lead edit

p1  Y edit

  • "It was held on June 28, 2009, in Loudon, New Hampshire, at New Hampshire Motor Speedway, before a crowd of 101,000 people." - I suggest two sentences because the commas make the flow choppy with the crowd part. Y
  • "and Penske Championship Racing's Kurt Busch third." -> Penske Racing (only to match the other sections) Y

p2  Y edit

  • "Gordon lost the lead to Busch eleven laps later" -> twelve laps later (20+12=32) Y
  • "He led another 20 laps for a total 93 led" -> He led another 20 laps for a total of 93 laps. Y
  • "His teammate Gordon re-assumed the lead following a caution period" - I think it should be specified it was lap 159 as there was a gap between Johnson's lead and Gordon's return lead. Y
  • I think Labonte's lead should be mentioned before Newman as it was 9 laps. I understand skipping over the one lap leads in the lead (pun intended!) Y
  • "and Logano took over first place when Newman made a pit stop for fuel" - I think it should be mentioned when Logano's lap lead started.  Note: see last point,
  • "The race ended early due to rain on the 273rd lap" - The rain had already stopped when the race stopped. I think the sentence should be reworded to say the race had stopped due to previous rain, to prevent confusion it had stopped cause it rained on 273rd. Y
  • There were eleven cautions, not eight (including the 2 red flags). Y
  • "Logano took over first place seventeen laps later" -> sixteen laps later (247+16=263) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

p3  Y edit

Infobox  Y edit

  • None of the three sources state that the speedway is a permanent racing facility.
  • Farmer's Almanac says the maximum wind speed was 11.39 Mph. Slight tweak needed including the km/h part.
  • The viewers were 5.555 million not 5,555,000 million. Y

Background edit

P1  Y edit

  • "one of ten intermediate tracks to hold NASCAR races...and Texas Motor Speedway." - this is way too long for grammar and too overly detailed listing the other intermediate tracks. I suggest dropping the other race tracks and keeping the ""one of ten intermediate tracks to hold NASCAR races" part.
    • Have removed because NASCAR constantly redefines what which tracks are intermediates, short tracks and superspeedways. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
    • This is also inaccurate as during 2009, there were twelve intermediate tracks, not ten. The current cited archived source is from 2011, so this needs to be swapped. Y
    • It might be better to cite the 2009 version (as this is a 2009 event) and not 2011. Both confirm it's intermediate. If you want to keep the 2011 version, let me know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
      • Added the 2009 version. MWright96 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • Thanks for swapping it out. Only reason I suggested is to confirm that it was the case during that season. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "The standard New Hampshire Motor Speedway layout is a four-turn 1.058 mi (1.703 km) oval track" - I don't see mention of "standard" unless you're referring to the 1.058 mile oval track for stock races in comparison to the 1.6 miles for motorcycles. Y
    • Removed the word "standard". MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • There also isn't a number of turns for the stock races at the New Hampshire Motor Speedway website. It only lists the turns for the motorcycle track. Y

P2  Y edit

  • "Dale Earnhardt Jr. was fourth on 2,084 points," - NASCAR says it was Kurt Busch in 4th. Y
  • "35 points ahead of their rivals Toyota in second place." - "their rivals" isn't neutral. Y
  • Ford, with 77 points, was eleven points in front of their rivals Dodge in the battle for the third position." - not neutral parts with "their rivals" and "the battle for the third position" Y

P3  Y edit

  • "Ahead of the event, the organizers opened a new configuration of the track," - I don't think they "opened" the track with the new version, as it was built before the event happened. Y
  • "which allowed the infield section to be expanded with 400% usable land made available." - I don't see this part mentioned in the NHMS source. Y
    • Added independent source verifying this information. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Safety changes increased the track's catch fences near the grandstands by 21⁄5 feet" - close. The fences became over 21 feet tall, not increased by 21.5 feet. Y
  • "The lower section was reinforced with six strands of 5/8-inch, high-strength cable, and the upper section had sixteen strands of 3/8-inch cable" - close paraphrasing. If this was slightly rewording with a different sentence structure, then I think it'd pass limited wording. Y
    • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I think "reinforced" should be reworded as it seems like an unique word to the source. The rest (inches/numbers/material) can't be reworded so it'd be fine after that. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, i think "wheel fence" should be decapitalized for spelling and the quotation marks removed to be netural (even though the source has quotation marks). Y
  • "affirmed the changes were not made in response to an airborne accident involving Edwards" - true, but it doesn't mention which NASCAR event the accident happened, nor that it was airborne, just the place. Y
    • Removed. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, in the NHMS source, it's mentioned why the renovations happened per Gappens and Zudell quotes. I think mentioning that the renovations did not happen because of the earlier accident and skipping why it did happen is not neutral. Then again, it might be too overally detailled to have both why and why not this renovation happened. Thoughts? Y
    • Have removed the whole sentence. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Fair enough. I was sitting on the fence with this one (pun intended) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

P4  Y edit

  • "One non-full-time driver attempted to qualify for the first time in the season." - not verified that Christopher was a non-full-time driver, nor was he the first non full-time driver who tried to qualified in Hartford Courant. Y
  • "who had last started a Sprint Cup Series race since the 2006 Sylvania 300 at New Hampshire" -> in the 2006 Sylvania 300 Y
  • "attempted to qualify the No. 27 Kirk Shelmerdine Racing vehicle." - car number not mentioned. Y
  • "Christopher said he was looking forward to racing the Car of Tomorrow for the first time in his career." - If you're referring to Christopher's quote, it seems more like he was looking forward to the race, not competing for the Car of Tomorrow for the first time. In terms of the Car of Tomorrow for the first time part, it's more stated by a separate sentence by the Hartford Courant columnist. Y
    • Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • "Christopher said he was looking forward to competing in the event" -> looking forward to compete --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Fixed. MWright96 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • I meant "looking forward to compete" in terms of competing/compete. "was" is still needed before "looking forward". I should have been more clearer. My bad. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "I went over to see him last weekend when I was [in North Carolina]." - yep. Could I suggest including who Christopher is talking about before this quote? The quote itself isn't specific with "he said" and "for him", even though I'm sure Christopher is referring to Shelmerdine. Y
    • Clarified. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • "and said they he had got a sponsor" - while this is correctly quoted, this is a grammatical issue with "said they he got". I think "he" would sound better as the quote doesn't mention Shelmerdine's team, just Shelmerdine. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
    • Fixed. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • On second thought, I think you should put "they he" back. You could add [sic] after that part to show that this is grammaritcally incorrect and not misquoted. My mistake. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • Restored. MWright96 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
          • Thanks for humouring me for this point. I requested in case it might seem like a grammar issue, while the quote itself is accurate. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "attempted to qualify for Kirk Shelmerdine Racing. It was his first time driving the Car of Tomorrow; " - just thought of this now. As the Hartford source was 10 days before the event, neither qualification or driving had already happened. I suggest rephrasing both "attempted to qualify" and "was his first time" into future tense. Examples of what I mean are "Christopher would attempt to qualify" and "It would be his first time". --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

Practice and qualifying edit

P1  Y edit

  • "He used a back-up car for the remainder of the race weekend" - while Jayski did say Stewart would use a back-up car, it doesn't specify that he would use it for the remaining qualifiers.
  • "its engine was taken from his primary car before the race." Nice surprise to see a brand-new source added. With the Boston Globe source, it said that the engine would be swapped over before the race, but the team hadn't at the time of the source's publication. I think a slight tweak would be needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
  • "causing him to spin and suffered minor damage to his car." - Jayski said Martin didn't have any major damage to his car after he spun, but it doesn't confirm that he did have minor damage. Y
  • and had no major vehicular damage. -> and have no major vehicular damag (as the "causing him to spin" isn't in past tense. Otherwise, you could change "causing him to spin" into past tense to align with the past tense of "and had no major vehicular damage". Up to you which way is easier. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

P2  Y edit

  • "46 drivers entered the qualifier on Friday afternoon" - Nascar doesn't specify that the qualifer was held on a Friday, as it was posted on the 28th, a Sunday. But, since Jayski does have this in the adjacent ref, I suggest citation bundling. Y
    • Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I still see this issue. The specific citation bundling I'm referring to is the citation after "the qualifier on Friday afternoon" with the one after "by the competitor's fastest times". Nevermind, I was viewing an older version of the article. Derp. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Each driver was limited to two timed laps, with the starting order determined by the competitor's fastest times." - kinda. 1-42 were determined by qualification. The 43rd was by most recent champion's provisional or next fastest qualifier if not applicable per Top 35 Guarantee in Jayski. Y
  • "Each driver was limited to two timed laps" - I just realized that Jayski doesn't state it was a "limit" nor was it "timed". But, the next part "determined by the competitor's fastest times" is confirmed with qualifying speeds. I'm more concerned about the "limited" part, as "timed" can work with qualifying speed, even if Jayski isn't specific. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
  • "The session was canceled due to heavy rain, meaning that the starting order was set by owner points." "meaning" sounds a bit of editorializing. Y
    • Reworded the sentence. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, the Laconia Citizen source doesn't specifiy whether it was "heavy" rain or not. Y
  • "Stewart was awarded his first pole position of the season", not mentioned by Laconia Citizen, but it does have his 2nd pole position overall at New Hampshire. Y
  • "He was joined on the grid's front row by Gordon" Laconia Citizen is contradicting itself with saying Jimmie Johnson would be in the front row with Stewart and later saying Gordon would be starting second. I know Gordon was 2nd, not Johnson. Y
  • "the latter announced that he would withdraw from the race" - "latter" doesn't work as three people didn't qualify, instead of two. Y
    • Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, based on the translation from motorsport magazin, Wallace didn't announce he would withdraw, the team withdrew. Y
    • "allowing Regan Smith to qualify." - I think it would help to state which position Smith qualified for after Wallace withdrew. Y
  • "in his chances of achieving a high placed finish" - not mentioned by Stewart in the Oklahoman. He only talked about the cars. Y

P3  Y edit

  • "On Saturday morning, Sorenson was quickest in the second practice session" - Not mentioned by NASCAR that the second practice was held Saturday morning. Y
  • "Later that day, Truex paced the final practice session" - Same issue with NASCAR not mentioning it was held on Saturday, while also not stating it was the final practice. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I suggest citation bundling Jayski with each NASCAR source (citations 3 & 23, 3 & 24) as Jayski is clear that Saturday had the 2nd and final practices. Otherwise "on saturday morning" and "later that day" sounds too brief to cite by itself. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

Classification (Qualifying)  Y edit

  • Neither source has the team names for the drivers. New/another source needed. Y
  • For some reason, NASCAR has an extra 1 in the car numbers for Gilliland, Nemechek and Christopher. Perhaps another source that solves above can solve this issue. Y
    • NASCAR does not actually use the extra number for the aforementioned three drivers; have also removed the source. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Eh, as I've just realized that the other three sources omits the 1s (i.e. 87 instead of 187), it's not a big deal. Same thing if you want to reduce the amount of sources, but I think both (dropping the NASCAR source vs. reducing sources) is not necessary for GA. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Classification (Race)  Y edit

  • In terms of team names, both Crash and Motorsport Stats say Penske Racing for Busch, Hornish Jr. and Stremme. Y
    • Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • There's also a contradiction for Raines's team (Front Row Motorsports in Crash vs. M&J Motorsports in Motorsports Stats). Front Row is right.
  • Source needed for the bonus points for laps led. Y
  • While this does not effect the GA review, four sources seem excessive for this section in my opinion. Up to you if you wish to trim or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Although i do see another slight name contraction with Red Bull Racing Team / Red Bull Racing while comparing Crash and Motorsports Stats, I'm not too concerned. My main concern is with the contradiction with Raine's team as the two sources have completely different sources. You don't need to change the prose though, just the matter of source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Standings after the race  Y edit

  • The top twelve drivers are shown in the article, not five. If you want to keep it to the top twelve, the note needs to be adjusted. Y
  • For Manufacturers' Championship, Dodge was 74 after the race, not 70. This makes the point difference 52. Y

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Section break edit

Race, Post-race, and lead sections review to come. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Images / captions  Y edit

  • Licensing for Tony Stewart pic needs updating per change of license, like the Subway 400 one I review of yours previously. Rest are good (nice to see free governmental pictures as well!) Y
  • "A loose car meant he finished in ninth place." - It's not connected that his loose car resulted in Johnson finishing ninth (only mention of loose was when it dropped him to sixth). I suggest dropping the loose car part and keeping the ninth place part for his picture caption - while also making sure it works grammatically. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Race edit

P1  Y edit

  • "The winner of a sponsored sweepstakes competition Pete Dingeman" - Jayski doesn't mention it was a sweepstakes, but the lap-by-lap NASCAR source one does mention it. I suggest citation bundling. Y
  • "NASCAR announced that a competition caution would take place on lap 35 due to the forecasted rain, requiring drivers to undertake mandatory pit stops for tire wear analysis." - Speedway doesn't state that the competition caution was specified by NASCAR, nor what drivers would do during that caution. Y
    • Used the Fox Sports source to clarify this statement. MWright96 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Looks good. I suggest moving the speedway source to the end of the sentence "tire wear analysis" and citation bundling these two citations. Reasons as Fox Sports mentions NASCAR announced the caution, but speedway didn't, while Speedway says the entire field pitted, but NASCAR doesn't. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "No driver fell to the rear of the field during the pace laps." - MSN Fox Sports doesn't mention pace laps, but "for the start of today's race." Slight rewording I think would be needed. Y

P2  Y edit

  • "Jeff Gordon passed Stewart to the right at the first turn." - based on NASCAR and Speedway, Gordon was on the outside when he passed Stewart on turn two. Slight tweaks needed.  Note: see next point. Y
  • "Stewart lost two further places when Kurt Busch and Newman passed him further on in the lap." - None of these sources state Newman passed Stewart in the 1st lap, and only has Busch passing for second. Speedway does state Stewart dropped to fourth in the 1st lap. Y
  • "as Biffle took fifth place from Stewart" - not verified. The closest I could find was NASCAR saying Stewart dropped to fifth at the 2nd lap. Y
  • "Johnson and Edwards moved past Stewart for sixth and seventh at the end of lap three." - no mention of Johnson passing Stewart, nor Johnson's position on lap three in all 3 sources.  Note: see below section. Y
    • Used the television production source instead. MWright96 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Additionally, NASCAR said Edwards passed Stewart, which dropped Stewart to seventh. So Edwards would be sixth at lap 3, not seventh.  Note: see below section. Y
  • "Biffle took third from Newman at the start of lap four," - Fox Sports doesn't have who Biffle passed to take third, nor specify it was the start of the 4th lap. However, it does confirm his third place position was at lap four.  Note: see below section. Y
    • "as Kurt Busch continued his attempts to get ahead of Gordon by taking the inside line." - NASCAR and Speedway don't specify "the inside line" part. Also, this was during lap 5, not 4. Y
  • "Kyle Busch fell to tenth when Kenseth and Montoya passed him on lap six" - none of this is verified by the given sources.  Note: see below section. Y
  • "Kurt Busch overtook Jeff Gordon at the entry of the first turn" - FOX Sports doesn't have the "the entry" part, but does have the first turn part. Y
  • "After starting in seventh, Hamlin fell to fourteenth by lap eleven." - none of the sentence is verified. Y
  • "On lap 16, a broken brake line sent Patrick Carpentier into a right-hand side wall at turn four, causing the first caution." - sources aren't specific that it was a broken brake line that sent Carpentier into the wall. As Fox Sports mentions the broken line afterwards (lap 33), I think the broken brake line should come after he hit the wall. As for the wall, it was indeed at turn four, but it's not mentioned if it was right-hand / left-hand side. Y

Racing production video points  Y edit

  • For Johnson and Edwards, I only see Edwards passing Stewart at the end of lap 4. Johnson was already ahead of Stewart at turn 3 when Edwards passed him at turn 4.  Note: see next point.
    • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • As you removed Johnson, you don't need the "and seventh" part unless you want to say Stewart was seventh after Edwards took sixth position. Up to you. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • For Biffle (lap four), i see he was edging his way up ahead of Newman in turns 1-2 but officially claimed third at turn 3. I don't think it was the "start" of lap 4, more like near the end. Y
  • Also, I don;t see Kenseth passing Busch on lap 6, just Montoya. It'd still be accurate even if you dropped Kenseth's name. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

P3  Y edit

  • "McMurray made heavy contact with the wall with his vehicle's rear." - I suggest dropping "heavy" for neutrality Y
  • " A third caution came out on the following lap: A. J. Allmendinger spun in turn two; he avoided a wall beside the track; Allmendinger had difficulty restarting his engine." - the semicolons make this sentence choppy. I suggest rewriting this sentence without the semicolons and adjusting the grammar as needed. Y
    • Changed. MWright96 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • There's no mention of Allmendinger avoiding hitting a wall after he spun out. If you're referring to Speedway, it doesn't specify Allmendinger avoided the wall on lap 27 so I can't confirm that part. Y
    • Finally, Speedway said he had difficulty bring the car "back to line", and no mention of engine trouble. Does that mean the racing line? In any case, he didn't have trouble restarting his engine.  Note: see next point.
      • It meant Allmendinger had trouble restarting his engine; have reworded anyway. MWright96 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • Could you point me a source that shows the definition of "back to line"? I'm having a bit of difficult searching for it, as it's giving me "starting line". I don't mean for you to add what it means, but to show me in this review page that it means that so I can confirm. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "This prompted NASCAR to move the competition caution to lap 45" - almost. It was cause of the overall cautions, not just Allmendinger's. Y
  • "As the top five formed a single line and pulled away from the rest of the field, on lap 41, Reutimann overtook Newman for eighth place." - NASCAR said the top seven were single file, while Speedway says top five around lap 36-37. As for pulling away from the field, only Busch, Gordon and Edwards are mentioned, making this not equal five. Y
    • Removed entirely. MWright96 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, Reutimann passing Newman did not happen at the same time as the single-file racers. This eighth place pass would need a seperate sentence. Y

P4  Y edit

  • Jeff Gordon returned to the first position for the lap 50 restart." - lap 49, not 50. Y
    • That suggested edit is incorrect. Have watched the race production itself and it stated that restart was on lap 50. MWright96 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I was going by the sources that were cited. But yes, you're right. It's funny how the sources contradict each other with lap numbers XD --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Johnson overtook his teammate Jeff Gordon for the lead on the lap." -> on the next lap (per the previous point). Y
  • "Biffle made contact with a barrier at the right of turn four on lap 54; no caution was waved." -> with a barrier at turn four on lap 53. Y
  • "Two laps later, Kurt Busch passed Martin to move into fourth" - three laps later (per above as 53+3=56) Y
  • "Elliott Sadler lost control of his car in the second turn, sliding into the side of Scott Speed's vehicle." - Speedway doesn't mention the "side" part, Y
  • "That sent Speed into Michael Waltrip, and Robby Gordon spun in avoidance, necessitating the fifth caution." - I think the caution was more because Waltrip hit the wall after Speed's collision with him, not because Gordon spun to avoid Waltrip, per Fox Sports. Y
  • "On the next lap, Stewart got ahead of Martin and Kurt Busch on the right to advance into fourth." - no mention of who Stewart passed to reach 4th in lap 65th according to NASCAR Y

Section break before P5-P8  Y edit

  • I've noticed that according to NASCAR Lap by lap, that Sadler's lap 47 lead is missing. You might have missed this point. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
    • Added. MWright96 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Funny how Racing Reference contradicts Lap-by-lap. Lap-by-lap also doesn't even have Gordon's lap 47 lead. Go figure XD --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

P5  Y edit

  • "Sorenson, Robby Gordon each staggered their pit stops, leading one lap each." -> Hamlin, Sorenson and Robby Gordon each staggered their pit stops (as Hamlin also led a lap before Sorenson during the lap 130s pit stops per NASCAR lap-by-lap).  Note: see next point.
  • "In the meantime, some rain was reported in the area; it did not affect the race." - I don't see this mentioned and also think it's a side comment. Y
  • "On lap 151, a sixth caution came out because officials located debris in turn two" - sources don't say that "officials" found the debris, but it was indeed in turn two. Y
  • "Several drivers (including Johnson) made pit stops for tires during the caution." - I'd suggest removing either the brackets around "including Johnson" or removing these two words to avoid side-comment. Y
  • "Johnson stalled in his pit box and fell to third." - Lap-by-lap said Johnson stalled at the start of pit road, not his specific pit box. Y
  • "Two laps later, Dale Earnhardt Jr. used side-by-side contact between Jeff Gordon and Kurt Busch to pass Stewart and Johnson on the right for third" - this seems a bit wordy and inaccurate. Lap-by-lap doesn't mention what type of contact Gordon/Busch had. Y
    • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, Johnson and Stewart were 3rd and 4th, not the other way round, when Eanrhardt passed them on the left, not right, for 3rd. Slight tweaks needed.  Note: see next point. Y
  • "Rain was again reported during the 162nd lap; NASCAR officials deemed the track safe." - as the previously mentioned rain isn't verified (around lap 148), "again" would need to be dropped. Y

P6  Y edit

  • "On lap 165, Johnson got loose on the exit to turn four and avoided hitting a wall." - it was the trail end of 164, not 165 (yes i checked the racing production this time as these three sources contradict each other with lap numbers XD) Y
  • "Johnson's driver error allowed Stewart and Truex to demote him to sixth place." - "driver error" and "demote" don't sound neutral. Y
  • "Five laps later, Paul Menard locked his left-front tire, and he crashed into the turn four wall" - lap-by-lap says turn three Y
    • Changed. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, 2 out of the three sources said it happened on lap 169. The video doesn't help as it happened when they went on break. It you want to keep it as "five laps later" or swap to "four laps later" up to you. Y
  • "collecting Burton, Mears, Reutimann, Brian Vickers, David Ragan and McMurray" - Harvick was also involved in the lap 175 pileup according to the sources. That was a big accident o.o  Y
  • "On lap 181, the race resumed with Jeff Gordon leading Kurt Busch and Stewart" - yep, but none of the three sources state that, even though the racing production does should it went green from the end of 180 to the start of 181. Y
  • "Newman continued after he made heavy contact with a wall a lap later" - it was the same lap (181) per lap-by-lap and racing production.  Note: see next point.
    • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • As you stated the lap restart was the end of lap 180, it should be mentioned that Stewart's contact with the wall was lap 181 (as it's not the same lap). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC) YReply
  • "On the 183rd lap,...due to debris lying on the track" - seems very long and choppy with the semicolon and commas. I suggest two or more sentences for grammar. Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Also, just noticed. I suggest dropping "heavy" from "Newman continued after he made heavy contact with a wall" for neutrality. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

P7  Y edit

  • "Jeff Gordon held the first position from Stewart into turn one at the 196th lap restart. "from Stewart into turn one" is too much detailed and not verified. As the next sentence states that Stewart took the lead back in turn 2 that same lap, there'd be no information missing. Y
  • "took the eighth position from Earnhardt with a successful pass." - "with a successful pass" doesn't sound netural. Y
  • "By lap 218, Stewart's lead had eroded and Jeff Gordon was close behind." - I don't think "eroded" is the right word here. I think another word would be better. Y
  • "Stewart responded to increase his advantage to 1.1 seconds nine laps later." - none of the sources says Stewart "responded" to Gordon being right behind him. I suggest dropping "responded" and swapping "to increase" -> increased. Y
  • "One of Stewart's crew members dropped a lug nut for the right-front wheel and Stewart lost the lead" - this one I think is out of place. As Martin was in the lead with Stewart pitted (235), the dropped lug nut didn't cause Stewart to lose the lead. Stewart also didn't regain the lead after, as Biffle took the race lead after Martin pitted (237).  Note: see next point.
    • Changed. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I think this should be clarified that this happened during Stewart's pit stop. Otherwise, it doesn't seem connected to the previous statement. Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "before making his own stop, promoting Newman to first place, who stayed out because his team believed rain would fall." - I think this should be two sentences to avoid a comma splice. Y
  • " who stayed out because his team believed rain would fall." - yep, but this was only in effect at lap 258, not during his lap lead from 238 to 247. Y
  • "Five laps later, Newman was low on fuel, necessitating a pit stop." -> Four laps later, not five (i checked the racing production as there was conflicting lap numbers with the sources). Lap-by-lap verifies it was lap 263. Y
  • "Labonte led laps 238 to 247 before he stopped," -> Labonte led laps 238 to 247 before he stopped before he made his pit stop (as stopped to me doesn't sound the same as pit stop). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

p8  Y edit

  • "and cede the lead to Jeff Gordon" - not netural and not verified. As Logano's pit lap would have been 278, this is also predictive as the previous prose in this wiki article had only talked up to 264. Y
  • "rain showers necessitated the eleventh (and final) caution on lap 268" - I suggest removing the brackets to avoid side comment. Also, it was on 266 the final caution per lap-by-lap (had to check the race production to be sure). Y
  • "falling more heavily on the backstretch during the lap. Three laps later, a NASCAR official in turn two reported a saturated track as the rain stopped" - Bodine said the rain was heavily falling on the backstretch during lap 268. This isn't the same lap as the caution per the previous point. Y
    • On second thought, it's not really important when Bodine said the rain was fallling on the backstretch, as it's mentioned when the rain stopped later. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, it was four laps later when the race official said the racetrack was wet (268+4=272) per lap-by-lap.  Note: see next point. Y
    • Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Per above, it'd be six laps (266+6=272) as it's skipping over the 268 lap comment by Bodine. Originally it was four, but since the previous adjustment, now six. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Logano momentarily switched off his engine several times to conserve fuel" - not 100% exact. Fosters does confirm Logano shut his engine off to conserve fuel with the article's statement and Gordon's quote. But it wasn't "momentarily" and not "several times". Y
  • "The race was stopped for a second time on lap 273 out of a scheduled 301" - Autosport doesn't mention the race stopped for a second time. Yes, it does reference the lap 175 big crash, but references as a caution, not a red flag. Y
  • "All cars were ordered to park on pit road and jet dryers circulated the track to clear standing water." - not verified by Associated Press  Note: see next point. Y
    • Verified with another source. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I don't see that they were "ordered" to pit. But the rest seems fine with lap-by-lap. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, I don't think "standing water" is the correct phrase here. Y
  • "At 5:42 p.m. local time, the race was ended because no track condition improvements were reported" - lap-by-lap only mentions the rain, not the track conditions. Y
  • "This gave Logano the victory, the first of his career." - I suggest adding that it was his first Sprint Cup win, as he had previously won Trucks events. Up to you if you want to add this one, but it's not mandatory. Y
  • "At 19 years, 1 month, and 4 days, he was the youngest driver to win a Sprint Cup Series race...in the 2005 Sony HD 500 at Auto Club Speedway." - sounds a bit long with the commas. Two sentences could help for grammar. Y
    • Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • "20 years, four months, and two days in the 2005 Sony HD 500 at Auto Club Speedway." - AP doesn't specify which race and raceway Busch made the record at. But it does verify the age he was. Y
  • "Johnson's 93 laps led was more than any other driver." -> Johnson's 93 laps led was more than any other driver --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

Post-race edit

p1 and quotebox  Y edit

  • For the quotebox, the "fluke" part is by the article's author Dustin Long, and not Reutimann. Also, Long stated "everyone will call it a fluke", so the race win hadn't already been called a fluke when the article was published. Y
  • "Logano appeared in Victory Lane to celebrate his first career victory in front of a crowd of 101,000 people" - no mention of Victory Lane by Nashua Telegraph (yes I know it's a minor detail). Y
  • "Kurt Busch accepted the view that the rain restricted him to third," - his quote seems more like he was saying that he didn't get the win in this rain-reduced event, not that the rain made him stay in third. Y

p2  Y edit

  • "The event was stopped early by inclement weather conditions" - this seems more appropriate to the first paragraph, not 2nd, as the 2nd talks about race times. Y
    • Removed. MWright96 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Actually, it works fine here on 2nd thought as this paragraph is talking about the event, while the first paragraph is quotes by the drivers. Nevermind then!--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, this part is not exactly verifed as USA Today calls it "a rain-shortened event last year at New Hampshire". As the USA Today source does say both Daytona and Coca-Cola were rained out, I suggest citation bundling to verify that Lenox 2008 was rained out with one that has the specific race name. Y
  • "television network contact" -> contract Y
    • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • "the start times to daytime races were moved to begin later in the day" - not all daytime races, a lot of them, per USA Today. Y
  • "Kurt Busch argued...New Hampshire round" - sounds a bit grammatically wonky and wordy with the "would have potentially meant competitors...New Hampshire round" part.  Y
  • "Ramsey R. Poston, managing director of communications and spokesperson for NASCAR...planned to discuss the topic with the sport's broadcasters." - close paraphrasing while also sounding long with the commas. Y
    • Changed. MWright96 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Think it's fine enough now to pass limited wording, as the words themselves are not creative. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, USA Today only says Poston was the spokesperson, not the director of communications. Y
  • "Standardized start times were introduced to the Sprint Cup Series for the 2010 season." - out of scope as this is the 2009 event. Y

p3  Y edit

  • "Kyle Busch apologized for causing the eight-car crash that stopped the race on lap 175" - Busch said he would apologize, he hadn't at the time. But the adjacent ESPN source does confirm he apologized, so the USA Today source can be dropped. Y
  • "Vickers argued that Kyle Busch should have been disqualified after he reviewed video footage of the accident in the infield care center" - Similar suggestion to reword "argued" for neturality" Y
    • Changed to a neutral word. MWright96 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Minor point, ESPN doesn't specify the care center is "infield". While it also doesn't say it was "video footage", I'm not as concerned as the infield part. Y
  • "Truex concurred with Vickers and opined that Kyle Busch slow sufficiently," - no mention by ESPN that Vickers wanted Busch to slow down in the future.
    • Removed. MWright96 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • The quote sounds more like Truex commented on what Busch did, not what he should have done. Slight rewording needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
          • Let me rephrase. Truex's comment sounds like he was talking about how Busch decided not to "lift". It doesn't suggest that Truex felt that Busch should have lifted. I think this could be reworded to focus on what Truex did say. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
            • Changed the wording. MWright96 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
                • I guess this is fine as the quote above this part in ESPN said "Truex concurred" meaning he had the same opinion as Vickers, and Vickers did say Busch was impatient.  Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

p4  Y edit

  • "as Jeff Gordon lowered his advantage to 69 points" - not verified if Gordon reduced or increased the amount of points he was behind Stewart. While race 16 does confirm it, it can't be verified if the point difference went up/down with race 17 alone
  • "Toyota followed in second with 94 points. Ford (with 80 points) continued to lead Dodge in fourth (70 points)" - similar suggestion with removing the brackets to avoid side comments. Y
  • "The race had a television audience of 5,555,000 million" -> 5.555 million --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC) YReply

Extra stuff i missed earlier  Y edit

  • Robby Gordon's team name should be Robby Gordon Motorsports (it's currently pointing to his name). Y

Overall edit

@MWright96: With the remaining sections (race/post-race/lead), there's a bit of work to be done. Some of these sections are quick fixes and others have a lot of stuff (specifically parts of the race section). Generally, there are some prose issues with wording/grammar, some neturality issues, some not verified info and a bit of out of scope info. As you've worked on most of the article already, I'm willing to place this article on hold for a week. If you require some more time (as it's the holidays), let me know. I also have to review P1-4 of the race section that you already went through. If I have any more comments in regards to those parts, I'll let you know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MWright96: You're all set to go! Well done! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by MWright96 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Fresh GA, interesting hook. Probably the first DYK nom that I can't at least make a copyedit on. Have you thought about using this picture? to illustrate your DYK? ~riley (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Lenox_Industrial_Tools_301&oldid=1196546369"