- I have questions about representations of sourcing, which should be easily resolved. Here is one sample-- the article says:
- Kendall suffered massive trauma to his lower extremities, shattering both ankles and breaking his right leg in two places — injuries that had lasting effects on his career.
- I cannot locate text that verifies that in either of the two sources listed. As an example, could you please point out where I might locate the "massive trauma" mention or that the injuries had lasting effects on his career? The articles seem to say that he still has some pain, but I can't find mention that his career has been affected; in fact, I find some mention that his career is doing fine still. As another example, I couldn't find mention of the "lurid" spin, but that is possibly in the offline source; could you provide the text?
- I understand. A lot of this stuff is sourced from offline, which is a bit annoying, but the best books and sources for this era of sports car racing are mostly offline.
- I've added an online source to additionally discuss and support the effects to Tommy Kendall: Back in the Saddle, from Automobile Magazine in February 2013.
- Kendall blazed onto the road-racing scene as a strikingly tall and unusually gifted Southern California teenager, and he was climbing to the top of the motorsports ladder when a hub failure sent his Intrepid GTP car careening nose-first into a guardrail at Watkins Glen in 1991. Gruesome leg and foot injuries derailed his career. Although he went on to win plenty of races headlining Jack Roush's formidable road-racing program, Kendall still walks with a pronounced limp. "Driving is about the only time my feet don't bother me," he says.
- I think "massive trauma... lasting effects on his career" is an acceptable paraphrase of "gruesome leg and foot injuries derailed his career." He didn't quit racing, but it certainly had an impact on his later driving. There are marginal sources I have come across that say the foot injuries basically cost him an opportunity to drive IndyCars, but as noted, they're marginally reliable in this context and would be too much detail for this article anyway.
- As for the "lurid, uncontrollable spin," that is paraphrased from p. 227-228 of Inside IMSA's Legendary GTP Race Cars: The Prototype Experience, ISBN 978-0760330692. On p. 227, the text reads, in pertinent part, ...since the rear wheel came off while battling with Brabham through a turn, throwing the car off the road into a violent crash. A photo caption on p. 228 reads, Failure of a rear upright sent Tommy Kendall on a wild shunt at Watkins Glen, 1991. Again, I believe "lurid, uncontrollable spin" is an acceptable paraphrase of those statements. The Automobile Magazine article offers a similar take if you wanted yet another source — ...when a hub failure sent his Intrepid GTP car careening nose-first into a guardrail at Watkins Glen in 1991. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Similarly, I am unable to verify this text from the cited New York Times article:
- Two weeks later, the series moved to Watkins Glen International, where long straightaways are coupled with smooth, flowing corners to make for one of the fastest road courses in North America. [1]
- My mistake, the ref should have been not to the NYT article, but to the IMSA GTP book. It's a paraphrase of several different discussions of Watkins Glen in the book — ...cornering speeds of 150-plus miles per hour were not unheard of, especially at tracks like Watkins Glen. (p. 198), ...though giving up over 30 miles per hour to competitors on the long back straight at Watkins Glen... (p. 227), etc. I'll be happy to add several more online references that discuss the course in this frame of reference — This is the nicest track we race on. You can pass here, and it's just a nice, flowing track with fast, banked corners. [2], The Glen cemented its distinction as North America's fastest road course when Davy Jones won the pole for the Camel Continental IX with a fast lap of 150.334 mph on the reconfigured 2.45 mile short course. [3] and more if you'd like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is possible that these samples (there are more) are in the cited sources and I missed them, but if not, the citations may need to be revisited, and whether the article meets expansion crit. may need to be re-evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just a note, this article is not an expansion nomination — it's 100% brand-new from blank nothingness. We've never had an article on the Intrepid RM-1, so it's well beyond the 1,500-character requirement for a new article. A rough count says ~6,500. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the responses ... My main concern was generated by the New York Times issue, so I'm glad to know that can be addressed and appreciate the considered and polite response. I typically only check for sourcing and copyvio/plagiarism, and will leave a full review to another DYK reviewer. Thanks for getting on these so quickly! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks for your comments. My intent (hope?) is to get this article to GA, so you raised some pertinent issues that I was going to have to address at some point anyway. The article's better for it, and that's why we're here, I think. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is always a pleasure to deal with polite editors! It will be helpful in your future writing if you take care to attribute inline, within the article text, opinions expressed by individual sources (according to so-and-so), and to be very careful that running together several paraphrases doesn't result in synthesis, particularly when claims might be viewed as exceptional (fastest course in America, etc). It's an art-- to stay close to the sources while rephrasing carefully in your own words, while avoiding copyvio, and while avoiding running together several opinions to synthesize a grandiose claim! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- A significant portion of the discussion above appears to have little to do with the topic, the vehicle, but the topic of another article, the person. As such I'm not convinced any of the above is on-topic for the DYK for *this* article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- All of the text cited (now correctly AFAIK) is in this article-- are you saying it shouldn't be in this article, but in the racer's individual article or that if it is removed, expansion crit. is not met? Confused, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Neither, just that the original objections didn't seem germane. Moot point now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to persist, but I'm trying to finish up and unwatch here, and this is still confusing. DYK eligibility criteria point 4 is:
Within policy – Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright.
The discussion was about verifiability of text in this article. I could understand your point about the text not being directly relevant to this article (rather the racer's article) if you were saying that expansion criteria is not met because some of the text should be in another article (but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying), but I'm not understanding why you are saying that WP:V doesn't apply to DYK, when the rules say it does (naturally, since WP:V applies to all articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I originally stated, V was met for the topic of this article. The points you raised, which appeared to be derailing the DYK for an excellent article with an fantastic image (which isn't part of the DYK nom why?) over a statement that I was willing to sacrifice to the other article if need be. I still debate the need for the statement in this article, but now that it appears you have passed it, the point is moot. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't discover the image was on Commons until after I got it started, and you're right, it's a pretty good one. I'll attach the image to this nom now. Going to collapse this unless there's any further objection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I do not know what is meant by "V is met for the topic of this article"; anyway, since this DYK seems to be set now, I guess there's no need to pursue this further, and followup on my talk might be better. Nonetheless, what I'm not following is that WP:V is not met "for a topic"; WP:V applies to any text added to any article, and DYKs must comply per the criteria (and per Wikipedia policy) ... so I don't know what is meant by "for the topic". I don't know how making sure an article meets WP:V, as stated in the criteria, can derail a DYK-- in this case, a rather major oversight was corrected as a result of this conversation. An additional factor at DYK is that if text is not cited to reliable sources, it is sometimes the case that length and expansion criteria might not be met if the unreliably sourced text is removed-- how can expansion/length be deemed passing if reliability of sources backing the text isn't examined? I would understand your point if you were saying those sentences don't belong in the article (you seem to be saying they are off-topic for this article) because they are about the racecourse and the driver, not the car, but the sentences are in the article, and you aren't objecting to them, so still confused ... HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Hook cited. New enough, long enough, and interesting. AGF on offline source. Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)