Talk:Danica Patrick/GA2

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Courcelles in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply


  • "is the only female win in an IndyCar Series race" -> something like "is the only win by a woman in an IndyCar Series race"
  • The image selection of her sucks, but maybe we can find one for the infobox that isn't slightly out-of-focus?
    • I've added one image of Danica from 2017 that is of higher quality than the image it replaces. MWright96 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • "Patrick drove the No. 7 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 for Premium Motorsports at the former." Feels like a bit of trivia tacked on the the lead.
  • "her father flew her to the Midwestern United States" Illinois and Wisconsin are already in the midwest. Check what you mean here.
  • Why are we calling her parents "working-class"... They seem to have lots of income to allow all this travelling.
    • They had to work a lot to help pay for Danica's racing activities in her early career until she received outside sponsorship. MWright96 (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Ancestry.com is not an RS.
  • "In 2004, Patrick competed in the Toyota Atlantic Series for the second consecutive year, becoming the first woman to win a pole position in series' history at the Portland International Raceway race." Source?
  • "At the Indianapolis 500, she started tenth. Patrick finished the race in eighth position. The rest of her season was modest with four top-tens, which included a season-high placing of consecutive fourth-position finishes: first at the Firestone Indy 200 at Nashville Speedway, and then the ABC Supply Company A.J. Foyt 225 at Milwaukee Mile." Sources?
  • "She opened her account of the season" Could just lose "account of the" here.

Intermediate save. Courcelles (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • "Patrick set a new record for the highest finish in Indianapolis 500 history" Sentence is missing something.
  • "in top-level NASCAR history at Las Vegas when she surpassed" Clarify this, because she wasn't competing at THE top-level of NASCAR, as the source acknowledges.
  • "top-level NASCAR" Again.
  • " Patrick became the first woman to clinch the pole position for the Daytona 500 and became the first female to achieve the feat in the Sprint Cup Series" Sentence could use a consolidation rewrite.
  • she became the first woman to qualify to start a hundred Cup Series race." Huh? Do you mean a hundred cup series races? In that case race needs an s. Or something else entirely?
  • "Patrick is passionate about health and fitness, integrating her passions into her work partnering with Nature's Bakery" Whoa peacockery. Could just lose this entire sentence as it feels like Nature's Bakery spam.
  • "In a 2017 article for The Guardian, Andrew Lawrence described Patrick as "an anti-Mulan" who infiltrated and thrived in an exclusively male environment while accentuating every part of her womanhood" Surely we have an article somewhere on what Mulan is?
  • "Patrick has featured in various power and popularity listings. Bloomberg Businessweek ranked her the 50th and 88th most powerful person in the world of sports in 2008 and 2010." Needs the word "respectively" at the end.
  • A sentence like "Increasing attendance figures at auto racing events and improved television ratings have been attributed to Patrick by scholars and the press." definitely needs a good solid source.
  • I see lots of completely unsourced info in the tables...
    • The reasons for results for the individual races such as the Indianapolis 500 and the Daytona 500 not being referenced is that they are already sourced in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series and IndyCar Series tables which is a WikiProject guideline for these particular articles, MWright96 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • It's "The Charlotte Observer" which you get right once and wrong three times in the references.
  • ref 211 is reliable why?
  • Spot-check of sources otherwise looks good.

A lot of minor niggles, but nothing too major, I don't think. Courcelles (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

    • @Courcelles: I have addressed your concerns and have replied where necessary. Since this is a large article, is there anything else that will need addressing? MWright96 (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Let me give it another read-through. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • I added an apostrophe in one location. I'm not seeing anything else holding this back from GA status; the article is well-written, stable, there are no apparent significant gaps in coverage, the images are all OK... good work. Courcelles (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply