Talk:2010 Pepsi Max 400

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

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Pepsi Max 400/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bcschneider53 I will be starting the review of this article now and start to provide feedback in the next day or two.  MPJ-DK  12:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay first of all I want to get the tool results out of the way

  • External links
  • Reference 18 and 20 (that link to MRN) seem to redirect to general results page, not the specific race results that the citation originally linked to. It would be great if those can be updated.
  •  Done Updated the second one, replaced the first since there was no archived copy. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the only External link issue detected
  • Copyvio tool
  • I saw a couple of high percentage results that I looked at closer. Outside of a "failed to qualify" the rest of the overlap is quotes that look like they are appropriately sourced in the article - those are acceptable.
  • Images
  • "File:Auto Club Speedway (formerly California Speedway) - Speedway.svg" - So this file is one of those that I'm not sure what to do with. It's listed as "own work" and I have no doubts that it is, so it's copyright is in order. My concern with these "own work" depiction of something is that we don't actually have confirmations that this is an accurate depiction of the race track. Copyright wise it's fine, but how do we know it's accurate?
  • Hmm...I've never had a problem with these images; perhaps there's something about the Auto Club one that's lacking information? Anyway, I replaced it with an actual picture of the track. Does this work? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other three images look like they have good Flickr licensing and check out.
  • Tables
  • The first table (Qualifying) and the last two tables (Drivers' Championship standings and Manufacturers' Championship standings) are not sortable, while the (Race Results) table is sortable. Are those standard formats for racing articles? I would have expected the first two to be consistent on sortability.
The race results are sortable so that the reader can compare different things such as starting position, points, etc. That's how it's done in 2010 Sylvania 300, a Featured Article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright consistency with other articles of the same type is good, I'm okay with this. MPJ-DK  22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources
  • The "inracingnews.com" website is used several times, unfortunately, it seems to be dead so I'm trying to navigate the archived version to try to determine if it's a Reliable source or not. Is this a source that's been used a lot in racing articles?
  • Yes, also used in the Featured Article mentioned above. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Racing-references.com - has their fact checking and editorial process been determined to see if it would be considered a Reliable Source?
  • Do you mean "racing-reference.info"? Yes, used it in several other GAs/FAs and never had any problems with it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I review the specific source use I will consider all NASCAR sources to be primary, which means I'll check to make sure it's used appropriately, they can be used for uncontentious facts etc. so I'll keep that in mind. The fact that 14 out of the 30 sources are primary is a bit of a concern right off the bat.
  • Most of the NASCAR refs are simply qualifying/race/practice results, so the likelihood of uncontentious facts in these primary sources is low. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "held on October 10, 2010 at Auto Club Speedway" should have a comma after 2010 and "at the Auto Club Speedway"
  • I am confused by this sentence "it was the thirtieth, and the fourth race" what are you trying to say? 30th and 4th?
  • This sentence "his lead on the first lap to begin the race, as Elliott Sadler, who started in the second position on the grid, remained behind him" seems redundant, if he's in the lead then EVERYONE is behind him right?
  • "The result moved him up to fifth in the Drivers' Championship, 107 points behind Jimmie Johnson and fifty-one ahead of Kurt Busch." - Mixing numbers, some spelled out, some not, please be consistent.
  • I can make some changes if necessary, but I thought the general rule was that single-digits should be spelled out while larger numbers can be represented by digits. What would you prefer? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what I've been taught is 0-9 spelled out, 10+ as numbers. Only exception is if the sentence has both, then pick one or the other and I have no preference as long as it's consistent in the sentence.  MPJ-DK  22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chevrolet maintained its lead in the Manufacturers' Championship, forty-one ahead" - should be "forty-one points ahead"
Background
  • I see some instances of the track being referred to as "Auto Club Speedway" with "the" in front of it, I would think it would generally need the definitive article - unless that is now it's normally referred to?
  • Auto Club Speedway is a location, a proper noun, so generally it would be referred to without the "the." --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the race, Jimmie Johnson led the Drivers' Championship with 5,503 points, and Denny Hamlin stood in second with 5,495. Kevin Harvick was third in the Drivers' Championship with 5,473 points, twenty-three ahead of Carl Edwards and twenty-eight ahead of Jeff Gordon in fourth and fifth respectively." - again mixed numbers spelled out and not.
  • "In the Manufacturers' Championship, Chevrolet was leading with 212 points, thirty-seven points ahead of their rival Toyota. Ford, with 135 points, was nineteen points ahead of Dodge in the battle for third." and again.
Practice and qualifying
  • "Three practice sessions was held" should be "were held"
  • "with a fastest time" - This looks wrong to me "a fastest"?
  • Should "the chase" be capitalized? after all it's a shortened version of "the Chase for the Sprint Cup"
  • So here is my NASCAR ignorance, is the first practice also the qualifier? That is how I read the explanation, I want to be sure that's a correct interpretation?
  • The first practice is held before qualifying; the final two are held afterwards excluding the teams that failed to qualify. Clarified that. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Race
  • "Next, Mercury recording artist" - that seems like an unnecessary detail to me
  • "Denny Hamlin had to move the rear" should be "Denny Hamlin had to move to the rear"
  • "Hamlin continued to moved toward the front" here it should be "to move"
  • "had moved to tenth, after starting 16th." again mixing numbers here
  • See above. Again, I've been told elsewhere that lower, single digit numbers need to be spelled out while others can be in numerical form. In the past, some of us at the NASCAR project have created a standard that one through twelve must be spelled while others are fine either way. Again, I'm flexible, so if you insist, I have no problem spelling them all out. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regan Smith gained six positions to move into 13th" and again, please be consistent, there are more of these examples than I point out, please check them all.
  • "Kenseth made a pit stop on lap 37 gave the lead to Johnson," seems to be something missing after "lap 37".
  • "Kenseth was the new leader" I think it makes more sense to say "once again" since he had led before.
  • "Kenseth's lead over Bowyer reduced to nothing" that sounds wrong, at least state "was reduced to nothing" or consider rewriting the whole sentence
  • Looking at the fedback so far we're making great progress. I am going to contineu reviewing the article and at some point swing back make sure the earlier changes all work.  MPJ-DK  22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterward, Busch fell two positions to ninth after Harvick and Newman passed him, repeating the word "after". How about "when Harvick and Newman"?
  • Martin's lead of five seconds reduced to nothing, after debris caused the fourth caution have it end with "when debris caused the fourth caution"?
  • These sentences seem contradictory, the first one ends with but on the restart, Montoya became the leader. and then the very next one states On the restart, Stewart reclaimed the lead. so Montoya or Stewart?
  • On the following two laps after the lead change should be "On the two laps following the lead change"
Post-race comments
  • lead in the Drivers' Championship with 5,673 - add "points" to the end of that.
  • @Bcschneider53: that completes my review, only a few small things here and there left. I am going to put this article on hold for as long as you need. Ping me when you've done the updates and I'll give it another read through, hopefully to pass it.  MPJ-DK  22:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bcschneider53: I agree, I think it's there now. Passing it for GA. Congrats
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Pepsi Max 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Pepsi_Max_400&oldid=1196572318"