Wikipedia

Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500/Archive 1

< Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Nascar1996 in topic GA Review
Archive 1

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have been through this article several times and have done some copy editing and adding of wikilinks. Please feel free to revert any errors I may have introduced. The article is fine and describes the race well. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:   Clearly and concisely 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) 19:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

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. Just glancing around, things like "To begin the pre-race ceremonies, Ken Sandifer, pastor at First Baptist Church of Darlington, delivered the invocation." Why is this significant? He doesn't appear to be notable, why is his invocation significant enough to be included in the article?--Terrillja talk 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I renominated every one you delisted and I will see if they disagree or agree with you. Also a lap by lap prose is the only way you can tell viewers when it happened. Also, Ken Sandifer, is notable in this article because at every race they give the invocation, perform the national anthem, annd do the command. --Nascar1996 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
They may do it, but it doesn't show why the person who gave it is significant. If the invocation was given by someone notable, I might see some importance, but it wasn't. As for the lap by lap, things like x led for y number of laps until z happened would be fine. The current this happened, then this, then this, then this, then this is horrible prose. I'm not saying that it's easy to rephrase it, but the prose it is rough shape right now.--Terrillja talk 14:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I'll see what the reviewers say before I make any changes. All racing articles are hard to write, but I quess I may be able to rewrite this article again. --Nascar1996 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is standard to state who gave the invocation, the National Anthem, and the command in NASCAR race articles. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on what guideline? It is probably standard in nascar articles on other websites, but this is wikipedia, where we have different policies. Not to offend anyone, but I can't see how the non-notable pastor of a non-notable church giving the invocation is notable. The same goes for the non-notable people who sang the national anthem (or the band that played it, in another one of these articles). If there is something including a notable person, then there is more of a case for inclusion, such as the 2009 Daytona 500, where Gavin DeGraw sang the National Anthem. Note that the invocation was not mentioned once in that article (which has a number of issues, but the invocation is out for what is [arguably] one of the most famous races). If it isn't significant there, then it likely isn't significant for a less famous race either.--Terrillja talk 15:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at some other racing articles in other racing divisions, and most of them start with the race and does not mention who performed the invocation nor the national anthem. The one that I have been viewing to help me with the newer article has been 2008 French Grand Prix, and this article has the same prose for the race summary. --Nascar1996 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that you're discussing why the article lists the people performing the national anthem and invocation. These parts of a NASCAR race are typically televised by the national channel. So I think it belongs and is not out of place. No one is arguing that the person doing the invocation or the national anthem singer is notable, just that their part in the event deserves a minor amount of space (a sentence or two) in a race summary. There's no policy or guideline on whether or not specific content that belongs in an article. Just discussion on the talk page like we're doing. Royalbroil 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Wow, that's very rough. Just throwing out a whole bunch of Good Articles from someone just because of the reviewer was a sockpuppet. Terrillija, why didn't you give NASCAR1996 some time to fix the issues? Why didn't you do a standard Wikipedia:Good article reassessment on a separate page instead of just delisting without giving NASCAR1996 a chance to fix over the next week or so like the reassessment suggests? I've peer reviewed several of the first articles written by NASCAR1996 and they weren't so bad as to require immediate delisting without discussion. Royalbroil 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They were given cursory reviews without any actual thought. It is better in the interest of the editors that these are reassessed rather than have questionable reviews, and I saw no reason to do a community reassesment on so many articles. If they are good, the reassessment will say so. I have mentioned some issues on other articles as well, but a few that come up here, just glancing: "Jamie McMurray led them to the green flag"- Prose, who? "After all lead lap cars pitted" Meaning who, the first 10 cars, 2 cars? And pitted should be wikilinked to wikipedia or Wiktionary, the meaning is not clear to someone who is not familiar with nascar. "On lap 190, McMurray brought the field to the green flag. " Absolutely no clue what this is supposed to mean. " Reutimann led the field to the green flag, but, one lap later, debris caused..." Very awkward reading. Too many commas or just general grammar wonkiness. "After the lead lap cars pitted, Denny Hamlin led them on the restart on lap 347. " Led the lead cars? Everyone? Who? "after final inspection after the race," Again, awkward. "The reasons for the penalty were unapproved rear gear and for unapproved door braces." No clue what rear gear is. Something related to the suspension perhaps? Who knows, the article doesn't say or link to an explanation. In addition, there is the blow by blow of the race (which I do not feel is proper prose, something another reviewer has brought up on a smilar article), but there is no outside information on the lead in, how drivers were doing overall, any other factors that would be significant to the race. The other articles all have similar issues, I don't have the time to individually reassess all of them to the depth required for GAN or I would have done so myself. I haven't even given it a long look yet and I still haven't moved beyond criterion 1a.--Terrillja talk 01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have reworded the race summary some. Could you please point out a couple more problems? --Nascar1996 14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate to have a GA delisted like this, but the issues do need addressing. How about I pick up this review? I'll try to pick it to pieces :) Airplaneman ✈ 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy if you'd review it. --Nascar1996 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago45 comments4 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    As mentioned in the delisting thread, the prose is a bit boring, most notably in the race summary section. I will copyedit the article in the coming days to try to fix this problem; I also encourage others to help.
    Nether, myself or Nerdy Science Dude knows how to fix the prose, but I will try to think of one. --Nascar1996 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    Here's a quick example: every single sentence in the lead began with "The race" or "The Showtime Southern 500". I've tried to put some variety into it.
    In the race summary section, there are sentences used over and over thast start with On lap x, driver led until driver passed him for the lead. --Nascar1996 (sign) 04:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    True; it's getting late here, and I will take a look at it tomorrow. For now, I've made some adjustments to the Practice and qualifying section. On another note, I have done some sports writing before; not sure if it applies here on Wikipedia, but the way I wrote, once a person's full name was mentioned, only their last name was used from there on out. I have also asked for the help of another editor. Airplaneman ✈ 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    I fixed some more typos in the race summary section. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    I saw Wizardman's review of another race article which you also nominated; please use his suggestions here, as I think they'll help. I'll copyedit the whole article tomorrow and continue the review. Airplaneman ✈ 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, unfortunatly it seems I will lose two reviews, but I'm going to try to fix it with NSD. The only article I have recently created has GA status written all over it it is 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350. --Nascar1996 Contribs / Tasks 03:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    To use 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350 as an example, I would expand the lead and add a "background" section (see the "coverage" comment below). Airplaneman ✈ 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    Copyedited from top to bottom. Putting on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. Airplaneman ✈ 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance:  
    In the "results" section, you might want to reiterate what you put in the lead so it is not just a table (who won, who led the most laps, etc.)
    Please review what I added. Thanks. --Nascar1996 (sign) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    Terrillja tagged it for wikification, Airplaneman ✈ 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    I would encourage the nominator to try and look for a few more third party sources. At first glance, all sources seem reliable, but more (reliable) sources couldn't hurt.
    Such as what? --Nascar1996 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not too into sports, and this is the first sports-related article I have reviewed; I don't know the "best" (aka most reliable) sports websites. You've used a good number (5 minus NASCAR), but maybe you can get even more news from Yahoo! Sports or Sports Illustrated. Of course, you don't need to redundantly source a fact with, say, three or four different references, but using more (reliable) third-party sources opens you up to more (hopefully new) information.
    I will look. --Nascar1996 (sign) 04:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Please see the tags in the race summary section.
    C. No original research:  
    Please see the tags in the race summary section.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    I would like to see more background information on the race, similar to what is at 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350.
    Seconded, the significance of the race isn't explained, it doesn't say if the points lead changed, if this race was significant in terms of standings, etc. --Terrillja talk 19:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    You may want to talk to User:NerdyScienceDude about fixing the article, I don't have enough time most definately with races coming every week so I give up. --Nascar1996 Contribs / Tasks 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    Don't give up now! You can always hack through the backlogs in December or something when the season's over :). If you give up, I'm failing the GAN :O Airplaneman ✈ 20:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    I quess your going to have to fail it, unless you want to see if NSD will help. I am for sure that I won't be able to fix these problem by tommorrow. Also, I only meant fixing this article; I'll have to fix it after the season then renominate it. --Nascar1996 Contribs / Tasks 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    If you or NSD haven't fixed it in two days, I'll be inclined to do it myself and ask for a second opinion. I'd hate to see our hard work to get to this point go to waste so close to the goal of GA. Airplaneman ✈ 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    I want all of the articles like these to be GA, but with sports talk and everything no one will think there good. I'll try to fix it but Terrija is making it a lot harder. --Nascar1996 Contribs / Tasks 20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    That's not the way to look at it. As the saying goes, blame the game, not the player (or something like that). If it's not up to scratch with WP:WIAGA, it's our job as reviewers and editors to tell you so here at this GA review. Airplaneman ✈ 21:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I'm assuming that you mean me, even though that username isn't close to mine. I don't think that any of my tags or requests are unreasonable or honestly hard to do. For example, [Someone] had a bad start. It isn't cited or supported by the summary, so I tagged it. Either there is a source that says that or you can just remove it and skip ahead to the next bit of action. There are other things that I haven't bothered to nitpick on, like saying lap 36 and then spelling out the fifty-third lap later on (it may be different numbers, but you get the point). Some consistency in text would be good, but I haven't gone out of my way to be unreasonable. I think the main issue is that you see these articles like they must be written and make it to GA in a week so you can move on to the next race. Wikipedia will be here in a few months, there is no reason to rush these through GA as "good enough". I'm not out to knock the articles or try to get them deleted or anything like that, my edits have been in the interest of improving the articles for future readers who may not understand all the terminology.--Terrillja talk
    Sorry about your user name, but everything in the race summary secion it referenced by the Rac summary one. It is at the end of every paragraph. --Nascar1996 Contribs / Tasks 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it NPOV?
    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:  

More

As the comments above are cluttering the review, I'm going to put more comments down here. Note that I have copyedited the article again; please make sure I didn't change the meaning of anything.

Lead
Background
  • When explaining the drivers' championship, you mention Kyle Busch's car build: Kyle Busch was third with 1,358 points in a Toyota. It is not mentioned for any of the other four drivers. For consistency, either mention it all of the time or leave it out. I would recommend the latter, as you don't need to go into excessive detail when the focus is on points, not car build, which readers may figure out in the results section. It also makes the prose more awkward, IMO.
Practices and qualifying
Race summary
  • Second paragraph, second sentence: Gordon maintained the lead until Brian Vickers overtook him on lap 38, as Dave Blaney went to the garage is confusing. Did Vickers overtake Gordon because Blaney went to the garage (for what reason, by the way? – source the reason!) or Blaney go to the garage because Vickers overtook Gordon? Are you trying to say Gordon maintained the lead until Brian Vickers overtook him on lap 38. On the same lap, Dave Blaney went to the garage?
  • Second paragraph, near the end: On the fifty-third lap, Bobby Labonte and Joey Logano both spun out. Link it for an explanation.
  • Second paragraph, last sentence: The third caution came out on lap 62 when Paul Menard turned sideways on the back straightaway. It'd be nice if you could link it for an explanation.
  • Third paragraph, second sentence: On lap 83, a multiple car spin involving Greg Biffle, Martin Truex, Jr., and Jimmie Johnson—try "accident", or On lap 83, a multiple car spun out [no link needed since it is linked above per WP:OVERLINK involving Greg Biffle, Martin Truex, Jr., and Jimmie Johnson.
  • Third paragraph, penultimate sentence: On lap 171, debris in the second turn caused the fifth caution. What/where is the second turn?
    • The second corner is before the back straightaway and it is the second turn that drivers make. I hope this doesn't seem smart. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I know what it means :), but not everyone will. Try On lap 171, debris in the second turn, which is situated before the backstretch, caused the fifth caution or something to that affect. And no, it doesn't sound smart—you're just doing your job explaining things. It is potentially confusing otherwise. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fourth paragraph, penultimate sentence: Ten laps later, Tony Stewart spun on the backstretch to bring out the seventh caution. Define/link backstretch, or rename to back straightaway, or rename back straightaway to backstretch.
Other

Overall, this article has definitely benifitted from a second GAR. I'm not going to give a specific deadline for the changes to be made, but I will fail it if progress isn't made in a reasonable amount of time, say, two to three weeks. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Showtime_Southern_500/Archive_1&oldid=1190252765"