Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 UAW-Dodge 400/archive1

< 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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2016 [1].

2008 UAW-Dodge 400 edit

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2008 UAW-Dodge 400, the third race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series held at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. The 267-lap race was won by Roush Fenway Racing's Carl Edwards who was later penalized 100 points for a loose oil lid on his car's oil reservoir encasement. This article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and I believe that it is up to the required standard. All comments welcome. Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It really is a shame that your articles don't get more attention, as Jaguar says, this article is excellent. Will211|Chatter 00:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

  • There are a couple of bits of information in the lead that aren't in the body, from the first couple of sentences of the lead. The lead is supposed to include only information that's in the body, rather than be an introduction that doesn't need to be repeated in the body. I think if you repeat the first two sentences, verbatim or close to it, before the "Background" section of the "Report" section, that would work.
    • I've removed bits that are not in the body. Z105space (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I wasn't quite clear on this. If you chop off the lead, what is left should serve as a complete article. Currently your first section starts talking about the track. It should start with some sentence such as "The 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 was the third stock car race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series", and tell the reader what we're talking about. The lead just summarizes the rest of the article. That's not what you have here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, I've asked about this point here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have chosen to add the remaining parts of the lead into the main body as a result of the discussion. Z105space (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I don't see this. I've just edited the first paragraph of the body to show you what I meant; I cut the crowd size since that's mentioned below. You don't have to do this with a simple repetition from the lead; a glance at other articles will give you ideas on how to merge the information in the first paragraph, but at least this does the job. Feel free to delete what I've done and do it another way, but the straightforward declaration of the facts (it's a stock car race; it's in the 2008 Sprint Cup series; it was held in Las Vegas on 2 March 2008) needs to be in the first couple of sentences in some form or other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I have only slight alterations to avoid simple repetition from the lead. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dodging to avoid" is redundant; how about "swerving to avoid", or just "dodging"?
    • I've changed it to "swerving to avoid"
  • "He was joined on the grid's front row by Edwards and felt his car had oversteer during his run": this is an odd pairing of two unrelated bits of information. Wouldn't the note about oversteer be more naturally included in the previous sentences?
    • Not that I know of but I have moved to an earlier sentence. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You've removed it from this sentence, so I've struck my comment, but FYI as far as I can see you haven't re-added it elsewhere -- did you mean to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is after the sentence where I talk about many cars were allowed qualify for the race. Z105space (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowyer drove up the track and hit the outside wall": what does "track" mean here? Per this I assumed it meant racing surface, but that doesn't seem right, as then every driver would have driven up the track and you wouldn't have mentioned Bowyer doing so.
    • You are correct in that track means racing surface.
      OK, then I don't follow the sentence. To me, driving "up the track" means driving along it. Do you mean he moved to the outside of the track and went too far and hit the wall? Sorry to ask what are no doubt basic questions to a NASCAR fan, but other readers will be as ignorant as I am so it does need to be clear for them too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four laps later, Edwards started to challenge Kyle Busch for the lead, while Jeff Gordon had moved up to third on lap 18, and Martin had fell back from third to eighth by the same lap": a couple of problems. You don't want "had" for something that postdates the previous comment; and "had fell back" is ungrammatical.
  • "the third caution was triggered when Stewart's right-front tire burst, and made heavy contact with the turn two wall": as written this means Stewart's tire made contact with the wall, which I don't think is what is meant.
  • I removed one instance of "fell down to nth place" but I see there are several more. Is this standard usage? It seems redundant to me; just "fell to nth place" is cleaner.
  • "On the same lap, Gordon passed Busch, who fell down another position": why "who fell down another position"? Isn't that implied by the rest of the sentence?
    • Removed "who fell down another position".
  • "Biffle and his teammate Kenseth drove alongside each other in a battle for second place on lap 166, until Biffle escaped and ran onto the apron on the next lap": I don't follow what happened here, probably because I don't know what the apron is. Could you add it to the glossary of motorsport terms and link it?
  • "officials located debris in the turn two groove": suggest linking "groove" to the glossary.
  • The post-race section has a lot of quotes. I don't have any objections to any specific quote, but I think it would be a good idea to go through and try to convert some of them to paraphrases -- the fair use justification for these quotes is weaker the more of them you have.
  • This sentence seems to be incomplete: "a device or duct work that permitted the car from one area of the interior of the car to another" -- permitted what?
  • Not an issue for FAC, but is there any reason not to make some of the tables at the end sortable?
    • It is the way how I create tables. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The qualifying, race and post-race points tables have been made sortable and sortnames have been added to the appropriate areas. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said, not a requirement, but it's a convenience for readers and I think is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I see on a first pass. Most of the points are pretty minor. I think the only issue I'm concerned about is the quotes. I went back and looked at the other NASCAR FAs and this article is in line with the usage there. I'd like to hear from other reviewers on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first source:

  • Jayski's Silly Season Site
    • Article: "Hornish scraped the turn-two wall early in the session"; source: "Hornish scraped the turn two wall early in practice". Too close to the original.
    • Article: "Kyle Busch won the third pole position of his career, and his first at Las Vegas Motor Speedway": source doesn't say it was his first at this track.
    • Article: "he came down the track and Kyle Petty hit Bowyer's rear-end and damaged his front-left fender": source doesn't say Petty hit Bowyer's rear end.
    • Article: "Reutimann did the same and scraped the outside wall, causing right-rear damage to his car. He was black-flagged by NASCAR because parts were hanging from his car"; source: "Reutimann slipped high and smacked the wall, doing right rear damage, NASCAR finally black flagged the #00 as parts were hanging off the car". Too close to the original.

Also, what makes jayski.com a reliable source? Per the about page, it's run by a single person. It's owned by ESPN but it doesn't appear that they exercise editorial control over the site. Our article on the site says that Adamczyk "continues to be the operator". -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've raised the question of whether this is an RS at the RS noticeboard; please join the conversation there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided to abstain from the any review of RS for Jayski. Z105space (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, though I don't think it's necessary. I've posted a note at the NASCAR project to let editors there know about the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck most of the points above. I'm going to nudge at the RSN for comments on jayski.com; I'd prefer to get more eyes on the discussion, since I gather it's used in many NASCAR articles. Once that's addressed I will look at more sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response at the RSN. Is there an ESPN page where jayski.com is linked, so that it can be seen that ESPN regards jayski.com as a good source for NASCAR news? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The note just posted at RSN is good enough evidence for me that jayski.com is reliable. I will try to continue looking at the sources tomorrow; I'm in the middle of several reviews at the moment so it might be a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I checked three or four more sources for close paraphrasing and found no other issues. I have not done a full source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "turn-two wall", "turn two groove": consistency in hyphenation, when "turn two" is used before a noun.
  • "  1,700 feet (500 m) long": Use adj=on in the template.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thanks. Much appreciated. I've addressed your comments Z105space (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review (done by Saskoiler)

  • Copyright status
    • Re: military flyover photo . The source URL for this photo is dead. Looks like it has been moved to here.
    • I checked all eight images, and all have acceptable status. [1] Own work - public domain [2, 3, 5, 6, and 7] Flickr with acceptable CC licenses [4 and 8] US Government - public domain.
  • Captions
    • "Military flyover before the start of the race." ← According to WP:CAPFRAG, sentence fragments should not end in a period. Should probably reword or drop the period.
    • "Carl Edwards celebrating his second consecutive victory of the 2008 season." ← Ditto. Also a sentence fragment.
    • Otherwise, captions are suitable.
  • Image choice
    • The last image shows Ryan Newman. It's an okay photo, but the large NASA logo is slightly misleading/confusing, leading a reader to wonder what NASA has to do with this photo or this article. Perhaps it would be better to swap in a more neutral photo, like this one or this one? (Admittedly, neither of these were taken on the day of the race, but then neither is the current image.) Or maybe just crop it?

-- Saskoiler (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saskoiler: All your points have been actioned. Z105space (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. Looks good now. - Saskoiler (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. This all looks good. Everything that needs to be cited is cited, and the citations are to reliable sources and are properly formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2016 (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/2008_UAW-Dodge_400/archive1&oldid=1138453463"