Wikipedia

Talk:2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350/GA1

< Talk:2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Airplaneman in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago47 comments4 people in discussion

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 edit

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.
  • Second paragraph, last sentence: define "caution".
  • Was going to ask for a race summary as well, but the lead you are prepping in your sandbox should take care of that.
  • 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.
Background
Practice and qualifying
  • Since there were three practice sessions, I think a more appropriate header name would be "Practices and qualifying"
  • 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.
  • 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. :).
  • 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  .
Race
  • Who is Tim Boeve?
  • 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.
  • 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.

A few lingering concerns:

  • Please define "pace laps" (first paragraph).
  • Last paragraph, first sentence: On lap 100, Bowyer and Sadler both spun out because Jeff Gordon went through the corner faster than normal - needs source. The source given doesn't mention Gordon.
    • Someone swaid I can use the television show to source this, but I forgot how. I guess remove the non mentioning part "went through the corner faster than normal".--Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Post-race
  • I tweaked the section a bit; nothing major needed to be fixed.
Race results
  • Like in my last review, please add some prose on who won, etc. (like in the lead). It doesn't have to be substantial, as much (but not all) is already covered in the post-race section.
    • Substanial? --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 14:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • I was looking for something like this, but if you want to base the format off 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, you may leave it as just a table. Could you add qualifying results in a table? Instead, can you add finishing results (top five, the lead changes, number of cautions, etc.) in a final paragraph in the "race" section?
  • Per WP:REPEATLINK, all terms linked should be linked on every occurrence because the results are in a table.
    •   Done. I could do this to all of the other NASCAR articles if you think this is a good idea. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, that may be a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to link the policy in your edit summaries, though :)
Standings after the race
Miscellany
  • A course description would be nice (I'm thinking a good place for it would be in the "background" section, with a mention in the lead, as it is a road course, not the normal NASCAR venue).
    • Hey I could add the photo from Infineon Raceway. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • No, please re-add the race logo. I was thinking maybe a paragraph or two about the track; maybe the track photo can go with it.
        • In my opinion, if they wanted to see what the track is like click Infineon Raceway in the infobox. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • I believe that would just take them to the image, not the article.
  • Is there a reason that the "race results" section is standalone and not a subsection of "race report", which I find a bit redundant to begin with? Is there even a need for the "race report" section? Please enlighten me :).
  • About this – advisor.js is usually only for article use. See WP:TPO on editing others' comments. I don't mind, but it's just a heads up.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Toyota/Save_Mart_350/GA1&oldid=1092009786"