Jump to content

Talk:2010 Carfax 400

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2010 Carfax 400 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed

No point to constructor.

[edit]

What is the point of changing team to constructor in the qualifying results table? As of last I looked, NASCAR doesn't have constructors, they have race teams. Besides that, team, or even race team, is shorter than constructor. Epione218 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it per 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350, but I made a mistake. I though 'Constructor' mean't the people who build the cars. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 14:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Carfax 400/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 04:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)—To save space, I will not sign my comments. I will also copyedit the article while reviewing; please review all of my revisions.[reply]

Wow, you really getting picky! Only few web pages have sources and some of this can't be done, because I wouldn't know. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that they aren't required for GA, but are good for article improvement. Maybe I'll ask someone else to take a look as well.

(deindent) Airplaneman asked me to look for any more improvements. I like how you expanded the lead paragraphs to about the right length. The background is great - I really like the history of the track layout. A newsperson did the national anthem? Wow! "due to accidents" - "due to" is one of the weak grammar phrases [1] so I bet a stronger alternative can be found. There are multiple cases of the phrase. "Kahne's vacated third position" - did he voluntarily give up the race like vacate implies [2]? "Debutant" - learned a new word that's in the dictionary - good job with the useful word - it's good day when you learn something new! "Said made a good restart, but because of his older tires, Ambrose passed him." - needs a reference that the older tires allowed him to get passed because lots of times older tires don't hurt that much. "Ambrose made a good restart on lap 70 to keep Johnson behind him." - "good" restart - it that WP:NPOV or can you use a more neutral term (several cases)? "because Keselowski had fluid coming out of his race car after being spun around by Gilliland." - anytime someone spins out someone then there needs to be reliable source because of WP:BLP. Overall - the quality of grammar is light years ahead of where you were at even 1 month ago. You now see how grammar and editing is supposed to be done - neutral tone, varied prose, great grammar. I'd love it if the WikiProject NASCAR crew would return the favor for me and peer review Alan Kulwicki to see if we can get our first Featured Article. Royalbroil 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally reviewed the wrong article: 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350. My comments could be used to improve that article. The "due to" comment is universal and the same with the "good" comment . Royalbroil 02:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of you comments helped, "Kahne's vacated third position" - did he voluntarily give up the race like vacate implies" Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing notes
Congrats, Nascar1996, for a job well done! Your timely response and hard work greatly contributed to the successful outcome of this GAN. Thanks also to NSD and RoyalBroil for their help. I feel that this article now easily meets the GA criteria, so I'm happy to pass it. Airplaneman ✈ 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Practice and qualifying

[edit]

Race summary

[edit]
  • Any international television coverage?
  • " Conditions were partly cloudy with a high of 80 °F (27 °C), making the track potentially slippery." – the reference does not support the part in bold. Done Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big giant copyedit here. Please take a moment to look at my edit and the edit summary.
  • The two sentences below could be combined, assuming McDowell, Jones, and Nemecheck are all part of start and park teams. Try, On lap 23, Michael McDowell and P.J. Jones drove to the garage, followed by Joe Nemecheck two laps later, as the three drivers' teams were using the "start and park" tactic to save costs. Note that the race summary reference does not mention start and park, so you'll have to find another reference for that (do you remember the TV broadcast? Maybe it was mentioned there. Or try the race rewind).
    • Afterward, Michael McDowell and P. J. Jones drove to the garage. - when and why? "Afterward" is too vague for an event like this; in this case, it would be OK to say the lap number.
    • Then, Joe Nemechek drove to the garage because of being a start and park team. - could be worded better
  • Five laps later, light rain falling in turn three prompted the second caution. - define turn three with a link or a note in parentheses, or even a more detailed note in the reference section (see here for an example). I would mention the location of turn three ("the turn at the end of the backstretch" or something). Done Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-race

[edit]

Other

[edit]
Qualifying
  • The "Car" header is a bit vague. Maybe "Car number"?
  • The "Speed" header needs to specify what value speed (in this case, miles per hour, or MPH) – sample header: Speed (in MPH)
  • The "Time" header needs to say what value of time – sample header: Time (in seconds)
  • Comment - I added "Failed to qualify" in the space between the drivers who race and the drivers who failed to qualify so the readers know what happened to those drivers. Hopefully there aren't any issues with that edit. Just being bold. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 15:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good!
Race results
Standings after the race
Miscellany
  • It is getting harder for me to make suggestions every review, as you're already implementing suggestions from me and others from past reviews. Overall, this article could beef up on prose. I'm going to be extra-picky, then :)!
    • Obviously Airplaneman isn't picky enough; I just fixed some typos that were apparently missed. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 15:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't even finished reading through the article yet! :)
  • The references need a consistent format. For instance, I see four different ways of citing NASCAR.com sources:
    • NASCAR (ref #1)
    • nascar.com (ref #'s 5, 14, and 22)
    • www.nascar.com (ref #'s 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20)
    • NASCAR.com (ref #'s 10, 18, 21, 26, and 28)
  • I would suggest just plain NASCAR, as that is what you're doing with the rest of the news sources. Refs like "www.speedway-guide.com" should be just plain "speedway-guide.com" as that is what is in big bold letters at the top of any page on the site. To stick to that format, you need to change refs like "www.mispeedway.com" to "Michigan International Speedway". "racingreference.com." and "www.racing-reference.info" are therefore renamed "racing-reference.info".
  • Also, the date format needs to be consistent. Currently, there is Month-Date-Year (MDY) as well as Date-Month-Year (DMY). Since MDY is more common, I have formatted the rest accordingly. If you're interested, here is the script, although I'm not sure if it works in Internet Explorer. Done and you missed one of my mistakes. The first ref doesn't show the information. Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 19:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For news article references, please use {{cite news}} so the author and publication date can be shown.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Carfax 400. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Carfax_400&oldid=1196563062"