I would recommend requesting a
peer review at FA level if you are aiming for FA status. Your hard work has paid off; you now can claim credit for another of Wikipedia's good articles. I had fun reviewing the article and working with you. Congratulations!
Airplaneman ✈Review? 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Detailed review
I'm going to take it section by section. All unsigned comments are mine (so don't forget to sign your posts!
) in order to reduce clutter. Finished tasks can be streaked with a strike-through line.
Lead and infobox
Since the information isn't repeated later in the article, I need references for the second and third sentences in the lead: "It was the sixteenth race of the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season and began at 3 p.m. EDT. In the United States, it was televised live on TNT and radio coverage was broadcast on Performance Racing Network starting at 2 p.m. EDT." Also, were both broadcasts begun at 2 pm, or just the radio? That needs to be clarified as well.
There should be a mention about how this is a road course race, (one of two in the season, correct?) as most NASCAR races are on speedways.
Airplaneman ✈Review? 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
There are currently 2 Cup races on road courses. Royalbroil 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Flagicons should not be used in the infobox in this case, as they emphasize the drivers' home states. Citing
MOS:ICON, I don't think knowing the drivers' home states is important nor relevant.
Upon further research, I found
Template:NASCAR race season infobox. I think it would be good to discuss the relevance of the parameters "pole state", "most state", and "first state" at
WT:NASCAR.
Reference number 1 does not support the statements referencing it. As you can see, it only provides info on the next race. This probably needs to be fixed on other pages as well.
Can you spot the error here? During qualifying, forty-six cars were entered, but only forty-three was able to race because of NASCAR's qualifying procedure. :).
Done;
copyedited the whole section. There is one unsourced statement that is tagged.
Haha.....Hummmmm a citiation for that, well it would have to be dry because NASCAR cannot practice, qualify, or race in wet conditions. Again *(giggle)*. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Then find a source that says that NASCAR cannot practice, etc. in wet conditions
.
Most of the summary is supported by one reference, number 19. I need one or two more third party sources.
That is one thing I do not understand: What are third party references? This is about the only one with that much infomration. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Third party sources means not NASCAR. Per your post on my talk, it looks like you found a good one. And it is fine if the reliable third party ref doesn't have as much info. That is why you have the primary one from NASCAR.com. The others serve as an additional means of verification.
Where I found that one reference and placed it is some places are we finished with this? --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
We'll see. We're not done 'till this passess or fails.
Nascar, you could use Racing-Reference.info - but even better would be race coverage from Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc. In this case I think NASCAR's website is fine to use for certain parts like statistics since there should be no problems with meeting
WP:SELFPUB. Royalbroil 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I would take RoyalBroil's suggestions; I need at least one or two more third party sources in the race section. Right now, the only third party source is reference number 3 at the very end of the section, discounting NASCAR Europe.
If I can I will, if I don't well I quess I can't. As of now I'm on the fourth page and nothing.--Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)reply
OK, that's enough. This article is definitely GA quality (for FA, we need more sources (and fleshed-out prose)!!!) I'll give it one more read before passing to see if there are any remaining issues.
Pretty much every sentence should be referenced so there is no doubt that the events actually happened. I know that you are putting citations at the end of paragraphs, but after you find more references, it would be nice to do that. Another option would be to put all references at the very beginning of the section.
Here is an example. This saves you from referencing every sentence and confirms to the reader that everything is sourced.
The link you gave me does not have the refs at the beginning of the paragraph. There are not a lot of racing refs like the Lap-by Lap, but I will look. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Erm... yes it does: "The specifications below are from Apple's "tech specs" page[9] or developer notes,[10] except where noted."
I always mess up on the references: like on my first article,
User:Royalbroil told me to add the refs to the end when I put it before, while now your telling me the opposite. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
So you put the refs at the very beginning like in Mac Pro and you were told otherwise?
Well, I was looking for something like Mac Pro… anyway, I asked RoyalBroil about it.
I seen the edit, as I am wathcing his talk page, and I am completely fine adding the refs at the end of every sentence. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I've always seen references at the end of each sentence - that's how I do it and how I'd expect to see here. See
Alan Kulwicki for a NASCAR example of what's close to Featured Article level. You'll notice an occasional thought that extends into 2 or 3 sentences. In those cases, the reference has been added at the last sentence of the group. I think you're thinking about the table in the article. Usually a reference that covers all or part of a table is placed at the first piece of information which came from that source. My opinion is that the best source for statistics in a race results table would be the official source - NASCAR. Royalbroil 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. In that case, the current referencing looks fine at first glance.
Last paragraph, first sentence: On lap 100, Bowyer and Sadler both spun out because Jeff Gordon went through the corner faster than normal - needs source.
The source given doesn't mention Gordon.
Someone swaid I can use the television show to source this, but I forgot how. I guess remove the non mentioning part "went through the corner faster than normal".--Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)reply
It's not in that source, but it is in the NASCAR rewind video. It showes Jeff Gordon bumping Sadler into Bowyer. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)reply
OK.
Post-race
I tweaked the section a bit; nothing major needed to be fixed.
Race results
Like in my last review, please add some prose on who won, etc. (like in the lead). It doesn't have to be substantial, as much (but not all) is already covered in the post-race section.
I was looking for something like
this, but if you want to base the format off
2008 Monaco Grand Prix, you may leave it as just a table. Could you add qualifying results in a table? Instead, can you add finishing results (top five, the lead changes, number of cautions, etc.) in a final paragraph in the "race" section?
You chose a good time to do this since after today I will have 14 days until the next race. I would like it to be that other way because it would also show who didn't make the race and their times.--Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:REPEATLINK, all terms linked should be linked on every occurrence because the results are in a table.
Done. I could do this to all of the other NASCAR articles if you think this is a good idea. ~
NerdyScienceDude (
✉ •
✐ •
✍) 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, that may be a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to link the policy in your edit summaries, though :)
Standings after the race
Ref #24 (also used for drivers' champ. table) does not list manuafacturers' champ. points. Please fix.
A course description would be nice (I'm thinking a good place for it would be in the "background" section, with a mention in the lead, as it is a road course, not the normal NASCAR venue).
No, please re-add the race logo. I was thinking maybe a paragraph or two about the track; maybe the track photo can go with it.
In my opinion, if they wanted to see what the track is like click Infineon Raceway in the infobox. --Nascar1996Contributions /
Guestbook 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe that would just take them to the image, not the article.
Is there a reason that the "race results" section is standalone and not a subsection of "race report", which I find a bit redundant to begin with? Is there even a need for the "race report" section? Please enlighten me :).