Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 UAW-Ford 500/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2015 [1].

2006 UAW-Ford 500 edit

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, a NASCAR race held at Talladega Superspeedway. I've brought this here twice before, and while the article partly failed due to lack of response, it also was suggested that the prose be revisited. After a copyedit by the GoCE, I'm hoping third time's the charm. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey, Mike Christie, Laser brain, and Ian Rose: I'm not sure if NASCAR just isn't as popular at FAC or what, but it appears even articles that were nominated more recently than this have drawn far more attention than this one. Since you all reviewed 2010 Sylvania 300, if you are free, I'd greatly appreciate you all taking a look at this article (no sweat if you're busy, of course, just don't want this to get archived due to a lack of response again). Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my case it's not a lack of interest in the topic; I'm just not very active at the moment, though I am going to try to review a little. If this gets down to the "Older nominations" section with less than two supports, ping me again and I'll take a look at that point, if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: It's in the older nominations section, still with only one support, though a second editor has just announced plans to review. If you don't mind, I'd greatly appreciate you taking another look here if time permits. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been busy lately, and haven't been doing much at Wikipedia aside from driveby fixes in recent weeks. I can promise you're not alone in feeling the lack of love—I've had an FAC up for nearly a month now, and it's dying on the vine. Sorry, I won't have time to review this one, either. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The prose in this article looks in much better shape after the GOCE looked at it. I would hate for this to be archived for a third time just because of a lack of interest in this article. Z105space (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to review: I've got a family do this weekend, but I've just bookmarked this, and if I don't review it in the next few days come pester me. Harrias talk 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks! The school year is fast approaching and I have some work to do as well, but I greatly appreciate your willingness to review. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Ref #2 uses cite news, but the similar Ref #20 has cite web. I think cite news would be most appropriate for both, but they should be consistent.
  • Refs #13, #23, #24 don't work for me, they are coming up with retrieval errors.
  • Ref #18 needs author details and date of publication details.
Image review

Prose review to follow. Harrias talk 08:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the images, but I'm baffled regarding the dead refs. The links worked fine a few months ago when I was working on the article, and now they seem to have disappeared from the internet archive completely. Should I add a dead link tag or just use a cite news template without any url? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Webcitation.org doesn't appear to have any of them either. A couple of years ago, NASCAR.com dumped Turner Sports as their publisher and all the links from about 2012 on back became dead. When I started work on the article, the internet archive had all of them in their database; it appears some of them no longer work. Otherwise, the image and source issues have been taken care of, just still unsure what to do regarding the retrieval errors. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Forgive me if I'm pestering too early, but it has been a couple of days. Are you still planning the prose review? And what should I do with the links? Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in replying; I was (and still am) a little unsure. My personal instinct is that as those were online-only sources, the fact that they are now offline make the content they support unverifiable, which is a problem. @Nikkimaria: should be able to tell us, if she's about? Harrias talk 08:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable guideline is WP:DEADREF: "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation". I would suggest looking for alternative sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well dang the Internet Archive then, I swear on my life savings those links were archived at some point. Okay, time to get to work then, I'll see what I can do. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias and Nikkimaria: Okay, I believe all instances of the refs have been removed. Thanks again for your review and help! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Looks like I just missed you as you are on holiday, but if there's a chance you have an opening, are you still planning a prose review? Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm happy with the sources and images now; I've printed a copy off that I can run through during my lunch break, and then I'll put up any thoughts when I get a chance! From memory, I doubt it'll be anything too major. Harrias talk 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read through a couple of times and made some minor copyedits. This looks fairly complete to me, and the prose is at least competent throughout. My only suggestion would be to give readers unfamiliar with NASCAR a way to figure out why the drivers' points table gives some drivers more points than drivers who finished ahead of them. I gather from a conversation on Bentvfan54321's talk page that this is because a driver who leads a lap gets five extra points, and I'm sure NASCAR fans know this, but it's not clear to someone who's not an aficionado. I'd suggest either adding an asterisk after each driver's points total if they received the five extra points, and explaining the asterisk at the bottom of the table, or adding a sentence above the table explaining how the points are awarded. I'm happy to support whether this change is made or not, but I think it would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and try to add a note in somewhere, though I'll be rather busy today, so I'm not sure when I'll have the time. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a note regarding the points system. Thanks again for your time! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has stalled again and has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for almost two months—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Please, I don't mean to beg, but let it stay open for one more week. @Harrias: is on hoilday until the 14th and will be providing a source review soon, which hopefully will bring this up to 3 supports and a complete image and source review. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am literally catching up on stuff now. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get to it before my holiday, everything got a bit hectic. I'm still a bit "here and there" for the next couple of days. Assuming this doesn't get saved, ping me when you re-nominate (again!) and I'll happily help you out. Harrias talk 15:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2006_UAW-Ford_500/archive3&oldid=1088824559"