Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Sylvania 300/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2010 Sylvania 300 edit

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 running of the Sylvania 300, a NASCAR race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway. Nascar1996 originally brought this article to GA status on November 2010, almost four years ago. Shortly thereafter, the article was taken to peer review. The goal was for this to be taken to FAC; however, for whatever reason, that never happened. After doing some additional copyediting and addressing all of the peer review comments, I now believe the article is complete and meets the criteria. I'll also add that this is pretty much uncharted territory as there are no other NASCAR related articles currently at FA status. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey:, thank you for your comments. I am going to be quite busy over the next few days and am unsure how much I'll be able to accomplish, but I'll try to address these concerns by the end of the weekend at the latest. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I may be around a bit tonight, but I cannot promise that I'll be able to anything before the weekend. But I promise I WILL get to it as soon as I can. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I've got everything taken care of with the exception of double-checking the quotes, which I will get to before the day is over. Thanks for your review; I have to head out for a bit now, but I'll finish addressing the concerns as soon as I can. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey edit

  • Please note that I know nothing about racing—I didn't even know what a stock car was before clicking through to find out. I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. Feel free to disagree with any of my comments or revert any of my copyedits.
  • Not necessary for FA, but you might want to consider alt text for the images
Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a good idea to set image sizes, as it overrides user settings
Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessary, but you could add a {{Portal|Motorsport}}
Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead edit
  • was a [[NASCAR]] [[Sprint Cup Series]] [[stock car]] race: when links appear side-by-side they appear as a single link; can this be recast so that the three links appear separate? Also, you might want to link all of "stock car race", as the target is "stock car racing" rather than "stock car"
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • which ends the season: "ends" and not "ended"? As the rest of the sentence is in th epast tense, if this is really supposed to be "ends", perhaps it could be qualified (e.g. with "normally", "regularly", whatever) so it doesn't appear to be switching between tenses.
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading the most laps with 176: this doesn't appear to be in the body anywhere—it's only mentioned in an image caption. Also, I had no idea what it meant until I read that caption—maybe rewrite it here the way it is in the caption?
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • after suffering a post-race penalty: "suffering" almost makes it sound undeserved
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Report edit
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third and final session lasted 60 minutes.: this is just excess verbiage when you could just say ", and the (third|last) 60 minutes."
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forty-five drivers were entered for qualifying: is "were entered for qualifying" somehow different from simply "qualified"?
Tweaked. Is this better? Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two drivers who failed to qualify for the race were Jeff Green and Johnny Sauter.: you might want to bump this back to the bit about the qualifying procedure
Not done. If you insist this is better wording, then I will fix; however, the drivers who failed to qualify are usually mentioned last in qualifying reports. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once qualifying concluded Keselowski said, "I felt I got a shot at the pole before I qualified but you never really know. When I ran the lap I knew I gave up a little bit of time right in the middle of both corners but I had a plan going into it and stuck to it and it worked. I’m really proud of that lap.": I'm not sure what this quote adds to the article.
Again, if you insist, I'll remove it, but to me, it's the pole winner describing his lap, just as the winner would describe the race. While it may not be necessary, I don't think it hurts the article or falls under anything such as WP:TRIVIA. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Chase drivers were farther down the scoring list,: Well, obviously, unless there's a zeroeth position.
Removed. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmendinger fell to twenty-fifth after pit stops due to having run out of fuel on his way in: on his way in where?
The pits, Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin's car suffered a flat tire and the fourth caution was given: due to the flat tire?
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clint Bowyer appeared in victory lane: should this be "the victory lane"?
"Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates, receives the trophy, gives interviews, etc. Therefore, it stays as is.
  • how many cars on the lead lap: is this quote correct? If it is, you might want to add a {{sic}}
  • The biggest thing is going to be going to the race track: is "to the race track" in the original?
  • is going to have to have trouble: is "to have to have" in the original?
I'll get to the quotes later. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked, and all the quotes appear to be correct as stated in the sources. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Results edit
  • In "Standings after the race", you might want to consider {{div col}} with "|colwidth=<something appropriate>" instead of {{col-start}} with a hard number of columns. Setting a colwidth allows the browser to choose whether to put the tables side-by-side or one after the other based on the size of the screen; using a hard number of columns will force the second column off-screen on small screens or screens that are taller than they are wide (say, on smartphones).
I apologize for what could be seen as a "dumb" question, but as my 7th grade teacher once said, "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." How exactly do you do this? I've tried altering this and can't seem to come out with something that looks good. Do you mind doing the honors and fixing it yourself or at least giving me text that I can copy and paste into the article? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to handle it with this edit---I forgot to add MOS:DTAB formatting to those tables before, so I've done that too. For some reason the tables won't align---I've looked at the html produced and can't see why. Do they align in your browser? If it's an issue, just revert it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it still doesn't look right (the exact same thing happened when I was testing it out), but thanks for your efforts! I hope you don't mind, but since it seems to be an issue for both of us, I've reverted it back to where it was after your first edit seems to have gone through fine, though. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's unfortunate, but I don't see a fix, other than simply dropping the columns entirely (which is an option). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to replace the semicolon syntax for pseudo-headers (e.g. ";Drivers' Championship standings") with bolding (i.e. "'''Drivers' Championship standings'''") or even actual headers (i.e. "===Drivers' Championship standings==="), as it would be more semantic—the semicolon syntax is meant to create a definition list, the bolding of which is incidental (somebody someday might decide it's better for definition list terms to appear in italics, in pink, or as a marquee). Using unsemantic markup can affect, for example, screenreaders, which may tell their users that a definition list is about to begin—and then it doesn't.
This is how it is done on almost every other article like this. I'd very strongly prefer to leave it this way for consistency's sake, but if you want it changed that badly, I'll give in. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to imply that you're "foolish" or anything, but I think this is "foolish consistency" territory. Using the semicolon for bolding is so persistent because it's easy, not because it's appropriate. Anyways, in this case the headers would be best as "|+" captions rather than what I suggested above. If you undo the div cols I added, I'd suggest retaining the captions at least.
  • One more thing here---the in the "Drivers' Championship standings" the "Points" are centred, but in the "Manufacturers' Championship standings" they are right aligned. Any reason for that? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the alignment issue, and hopefully the header issue as well, let me know if it still looks off to you. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

Support. The article is in good shape. A couple of minor comments below.

  • I was surprised by the level of detail on lead changes; can you confirm that this is normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race?
    • There is no "normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race" because the quality of the articles can be vastly different from one race to the next. Some pre-2007 races don't even have articles yet. However, the other articles that are at GA status put this much detail into the race summary; I can try to trim if you insist it is too much, but there are other articles that go into this much detail. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's fine; I guess I should have asked if this level of detail is what an aficionado would expect, and it seems the answer is yes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence says the race is "a stock car racing competition involving the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series". "Involving" doesn't seem quite right -- it's a part of the series, so the series includes it, but I don't see why one would say it "involves" the series. I'd suggest cutting the reference completely as the best way to fix it, because the next line explains that it's part of the 2010 series. As it stands it's a little repetitious, and I don't think the reader loses any information if you cut it.
  • "Bowyer appeared in victory lane": shouldn't this be "in the victory lane"?
    • See above. "Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates; similarly, "pit road" is not "the pit road" because it is the actual name for the area of the track where the pit crews service the cars. If one "the" is going to keep this from reaching FA, I'll change it, but the above reasoning is why the "the" is not currently included. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No longer an issue as the phrase has been removed entirely. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If that's the standard terminology, I see no problem with keeping it, unless you had other reasons to change it. I've struck my comment, but I think it would be fine to go back to your original terminology, which I assume is what a NASCAR fan would expect, and link it to victory lane. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Tweaked again, let me know if it's still an issue. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the issues below later. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does the given reference support the comment about Bowyer appearing in [the] victory lane?
  • Footnote 27 is used to support the comment about Bowyer's car's rear bodywork being the cause of the problem, but it looks like it should be citing 28 instead.
  • Any reason not to mention the team's plan to appeal? Did they appeal, and if so what was the outcome?
    • I did not mention the team's plan to appeal because the team did not plan to appeal. Most NASCAR penalties, even ones as severe as this one, are simply accepted by the teams if it is clear the acknowledged their mistakes. That appears to be the case here, as I can't find anything that confirms the team ever appealed the penalty. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In this article Childress is quoted as saying he would appeal; of course that doesn't mean he actually did appeal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I admit I missed that. I'll try to research that; of course, if they did appeal, the penalties were not overturned, but I'll take a look. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I messed up. The team apparently did appeal, as seen here. I'll make an addition discussing the appeal and the results.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I believe this is now resolved. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good. I think it would be even better to mention Childress's argument about the wrecker pushing the car; the tolerance error was tiny, and his explanation seemed plausible to me and I'm sure would interest most readers. Could we add a few more details about the appeal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more details. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Mike. I'm currently driving home from New York, but I'll be home by the end of the night and will try to address these issues over the weekend. Thanks, again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I copyedited the lead; as always, feel free to revert. I'm not watching this page, but I'll be happy to discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; to me, it seems fine, if not better, than before. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 10:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain edit

  • Should "Chase for the Sprint Cup" in the lead be linked to the specific year's?
  • There are not individual Chase articles, only season articles and a generic article on the Chase. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The track's turns are banked at two to seven degrees" This isn't really the same as what the source says: "Variable banking at 2/7 degrees" At any rate, is the track banking really a necessary detail for a race article? Are their other race FAs you can compare with?
  • There are not any race FAs that I can compare with; as I noted when I initiated the nomination, this is essentially uncharted territory. I can change it to something like "The track's banking in the turns varies from two to seven degrees" or remove it completely if you would prefer. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a matter of opinion, really. If you think it's relevant, I think we should at least clarify the language. I like your new suggestion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualifying table: is the sea-of-blue linking necessary, especially the names which have been linked earlier in the article?
  • You want "sea-of-blue", see this version. I removed duplicate links (e.g. team names, manufactures and from the race results and standings), but I think the others are alright. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting of the "Standings after the race" section is weird on my screen. The smaller table is several inches to the right of the larger table. Why the gap?
  • Would you prefer the 2nd table to be underneath the first? Either way, I think a gap of some sort is almost inevitable. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I played with a bit and couldn't get it looking any better, so might as well leave it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why the archive links appear differently in some of the footnotes in the References section? For example, in fn 2 "the original" is the clickable link; in fn 3, "archived" is the link. Weird.
  • I think some were done a while back by DASHbot when they weren't dead, but I've fixed them. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images in the article seem gratuitious, especially the ones of racers that aren't even taken at this race. The photo of Hamlin hanging out down at the bottom is especially out-of-place.
  • In my idea, it gives the reader an idea of the pole winner, race winner, point standings leader, etc, and it illustrates the article. If you insist, I can remove them, but I'll note that this is not unusual for other articles. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted that a large percentage of the sources you used to write the article are from NASCAR—a source that obviously has a vested interest in presenting the race and drivers in a positive light. Have you done some additional searches for sources that might be more neutral and offer other perspectives on the race?
  • Yes, and they are already in the article. NASCAR publishes the practice, qualifying and race results, along with other news articles pertaining to the weekend's headlines. But I do have other sources from ESPN and have added some, let me know if you need me to find more, if possible. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find anything that doesn't just repeat stuff you already have. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some random spot-checks for close paraphrasing/copyvio and didn't find anything of concern.

It's a good read and I think it's close to being ready, pending some fit-and-finish and the source question. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Thank you for your concerns. I've added some sources to the article and tweaked some things, and I've given my reasoning for leaving others untouched. If there is more you would like done, please let me know, but I may be rather unresponsive during the rest of the week with schoolwork as mid-terms for me begin next week. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looking great. All my concerns have been addressed, or fair reasons given for not addressing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from Ian Rose edit

Thanks everyone for your input, a few things:

  • Am I right in assuming this is your first FAC, Bentvfan? If so my apologies for not saying welcome on behalf of the FAC coordinators before now!
  • I believe we still someone to carry out image and source reviews for this.
  • I assume you meant "need" between still and someone? If so, that would be great. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any NASCAR or general motorsport experts cast their eye over this? Non-expert review is vital to help ensure comprehensibility for the average reader but we should have someone familiar with the subject as well…
  • I'll note that while I'm not a NASCAR expert, I'm very knowledgeable about open-wheel racing and racing in general. Nothing struck me as incorrect while reading, nor did I notice any mis-used terminology or omissions. --Laser brain (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Andy, that certainly helps. I followed motor racing myself for quite a while, mostly production cars (Australian parlance for "stock cars") -- which of course these days are really "super cars" -- so at a pinch I could recuse from coord duties and review myself. Anyway, let's see if anything comes of the WikiProject request while we await image and source reviews (the latter only if your source spotcheck didn't include source formatting/reliability, let me know). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support pending final checks -- Okay, couldn't resist, recused myself from coord duties to review and copyedit (a little). It all made sense to me, the prose was engaging but neutral, the structure logical and the detail quite sufficient. Assuming an image review (and source review if Andy didn't get round to that) comes back clean I'll be happy to offer my full support. I hope we'll see more of your work, and don't forget that we can always use reviewers who've familiarised themselves with the FA criteria to comment on other active FACs... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ian, I did a spot-check for close paraphrasing, but no source/image review. I'll come back in a few hours and do those. --Laser brain (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review edit

  • Yep, looks good. I owe you a source review too—will try to get to that shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fn 7 has the wrong publisher—should be Speedway Motorsports or whatever's listed in the footer.
  • Fn 10 and 22 seem to have the wrong publisher. The site shows Fox Sports Digital.
  • Fn 23, need page number. And, can't we find a better source than a middle-school math book?

Otherwise, sources look good. --Laser brain (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I've got to study for midterms for the rest of the night and can't do much research (I've procrastinated enough already), but I'll fix these as soon as possible. Regarding the last source, that was the only book source I could find, and I included that as I am still new to the FAC process and was unsure if book sources were required or not. But it seems that is not the case, so I'll remove that and add a better source. Thanks again! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think these have all been fixed, let me know if anything is still an issue. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2014 (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/2010_Sylvania_300/archive1&oldid=1088824493"