Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Daytona International Speedway/1
Post reassessment comment edit
I regret not commenting on this reassessment sooner, as there are some alarming comments, starting with "I don't fail an article just because it fails one of the criteria."
A Good Article is an article which meets all of the good article criteria. Ergo, if an article fails to meet one criterion, then either it must be fixed or it should not be listed as a GA. It is all very well to "do a little more flexibility" when the failings of an article are marginal or arguable, but a single manifest failure to meet the criteria is already grounds to delist.
As a second remark, articles should be written for the widest audience of readers likely to be interested in the topic, not just fans, and they should be verifiable to all such readers. I did not know about Daytona, but it seems to be quite a remarkable racetrack and I was glad to learn something about it.
However, despite my delay in getting to this reassessment, the article was still in poor shape when I read it through this afternoon. I made some fixes myself, and encourage others to do likewise: rather than discuss whether substandard articles meet the criteria, fix them! Geometry guy 18:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)