Talk:2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 21:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

While this article provides a decent summary of the event, it seems to have some pretty serious issues, and look through the other articles you have nominated at GA, they have similar problems. The lead is far too short for an article of this size: it fails to adequately summarise the article content, and needs significant expansion to do so. The article itself is woefully under-referenced. Some examples of information presented without a citation:

• Atlanta Motor Speedway (formerly Atlanta International Raceway) is a track in Hampton, Georgia, 20 miles (32 km) south of Atlanta. It is a 1.54 miles (2.48 km) quad-oval track with a seating capacity of 111,000. It opened in 1960 as a 1.5 miles (2.4 km) standard oval. In 1994, 46 condominiums were built over the northeastern side of the track. In 1997, to standardize the track with Speedway Motorsports' other two 1.5 miles (2.4 km) ovals, the entire track was almost completely rebuilt. The frontstretch and backstretch were swapped, and the configuration of the track was changed from oval to quad-oval. The project made the track one of the fastest on the NASCAR circuit. Kasey Kahne was the defending race winner. – The entire first paragraph.
• All of the actual race report until the final section.
• The race statistics and race awards sections.
• The media section.
• The standings after the race section.

The references that are there appear to be well formatted, but this article needs a lot more of them. As noted, these issues apply to all of the articles you have nominated, and need to be resolved before a proper review can be completed. I will place this article on hold for a week to allow this work to be done before I begin the full review process. Harrias ^talk 21:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, thanks for reviewing the article. Second, I'll see what I can do with what you presented.--Nascar king 21:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your point on the points standings, that's sourced by reference 9 and 10. They're both among the ten that are located in the infobox. On the media section, that's something that's stated on the day of the race during the broadcasts. I could probably find a source for the television side, but the radio one would be a bit harder to find. Source #10 also covers the race statistics and awards. Unless the copyright holders to the NASCAR broadcasts would have no problem with using the full length YouTube video they posted a few months ago as a source, you can't really cite a lot of what goes on during the race itself.--Nascar king 22:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all information presented in an article needs to be verifiable. If you can't find a reliable source for something, it can't be included. There must be race reports on ESPN and local newspaper sites that you can use. Regarding the sources for the points standings, in order to maintain Text–source integrity, the references have to be provided in the relevant section, not just in the infobox. Harrias ^talk 06:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:  Not checked

2. Verifiable?:  Fail – Despite some improvement to the referencing, the bulk of the article is still completely lacking inline citations, which are a key part of Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. Without those it is impossible to tell which parts of the article are backed up by which sources, and as such, impossible to tell whether there is any original research.

3. Broad in coverage?:  Not checked

4. Neutral point of view?:  Not checked

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?:  Not checked

As noted above, similar issues are present in the other articles that you have nominated for GA, and unless improvement have been made on those, I will close all the outstanding nominations pending further work.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Harrias ^talk 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)