Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Subway Fresh Fit 600/archive1

2010 Subway Fresh Fit 600

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to edit this article correctly to be able to nominate it for GA.

Thanks, Nascar 1996 01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

First off thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It's genuinely appreciated. I see that you wish to take this article to WP:GAC. This is a noble endeavor. I'll give you some feedback on how to improve the article and prepare it for a GA run.

Take a look at WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to be a summary of all the aspects of the article. It should not bring up information that is not in the body of the article. The discussion in the lead about Carl Edwards' suspension isn't mentioned in the body of the article and so the issue should either be addressed in the article or removed from the lead. Personally it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the race so I would remove it from the article completely, but that's just my opinion. If you do decide to leave it in the article then the description of what happened, "Keselowski was sent airborne, subsequently crashing on his side door", should be in the text of the article not in the lead.
- Done --Nascar 1996 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should also mention the pole sitter.
- Done --Nascar 1996 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read through the article I got a strong sense that you built this article in the mold of 2010 Food City 500, which is also a GA. It is very wise to look at articles similar in subject to yours that have attained what you wish to attain. Keep in mind that the GA process is very individualized. Each reviewer interprets the GA Criteria a little differently. As I looked at the Food City 500 article I found issues that I would have addressed had I been the reviewer. All that to say that just because it's ok in one GA doesn't mean it'll be ok in the article your nominating. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't as consistent or fair as we'd all wish it would be.
- Okay. --Nascar 1996 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the writing is ok, you want to look for small spelling errors and tense agreement.
- Done --Nascar 1996 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to have a reference for the results section.
- Done --Nascar 1996 19:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than what I've listed above I think you have a good, tight article. Unless there's more to this race that could be added (off track altercations, judging controversies), then I think it's in good shape. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]