Talk:2010 Autism Speaks 400

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Terrillja in topic Delisted GA
Former good article2010 Autism Speaks 400 was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Autism Speaks 400/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • This article covers all the GA bases. An interesting article on the race. I have done some copy editing. Please revert any errors I introduced.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:   Well written
    B. MoS compliance:   Complies with required elements of MOS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:   Reliable sources
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:   Well referenced
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:   Sets the context
    B. Focused:   Remains focused on the topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!  

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Delisted GA edit

As the assessment was done by a socking and essentially banned user, major issues such as prose were not adressed. There should be some element of a progression of the race, but a lap by lap recount is not proper prose. I would suggest a reassessment of this and any other articles the user reviewed once the issues are addressed.--Terrillja talk 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)--Terrillja talk 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply