Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500/Archive 1

Delisted GA
As the assessment was done by a socking and essentially banned user, major issues such as prose were not adressed. There should be some element of a progression of the race, but a lap by lap recount is not proper prose. I would suggest a reassessment of this and any other articles the user reviewed once the issues are addressed. Just glancing around, things like "To begin the pre-race ceremonies, Ken Sandifer, pastor at First Baptist Church of Darlington, delivered the invocation." Why is this significant? He doesn't appear to be notable, why is his invocation significant enough to be included in the article?-- Terrillja talk  05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I renominated every one you delisted and I will see if they disagree or agree with you. Also a lap by lap prose is the only way you can tell viewers when it happened. Also, Ken Sandifer, is notable in this article because at every race they give the invocation, perform the national anthem, annd do the command. -- Nascar 1996  14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They may do it, but it doesn't show why the person who gave it is significant. If the invocation was given by someone notable, I might see some importance, but it wasn't. As for the lap by lap, things like x led for y number of laps until z happened would be fine. The current this happened, then this, then this, then this, then this is horrible prose. I'm not saying that it's easy to rephrase it, but the prose it is rough shape right now.-- Terrillja talk  14:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I'll see what the reviewers say before I make any changes. All racing articles are hard to write, but I quess I may be able to rewrite this article again. -- Nascar 1996  14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that it is standard to state who gave the invocation, the National Anthem, and the command in NASCAR race articles. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what guideline? It is probably standard in nascar articles on other websites, but this is wikipedia, where we have different policies. Not to offend anyone, but I can't see how the non-notable pastor of a non-notable church giving the invocation is notable. The same goes for the non-notable people who sang the national anthem (or the band that played it, in another one of these articles). If there is something including a notable person, then there is more of a case for inclusion, such as the 2009 Daytona 500, where Gavin DeGraw sang the National Anthem. Note that the invocation was not mentioned once in that article (which has a number of issues, but the invocation is out for what is [arguably] one of the most famous races). If it isn't significant there, then it likely isn't significant for a less famous race either.-- Terrillja talk  15:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at some other racing articles in other racing divisions, and most of them start with the race and does not mention who performed the invocation nor the national anthem. The one that I have been viewing to help me with the newer article has been 2008 French Grand Prix, and this article has the same prose for the race summary. -- Nascar 1996  18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you're discussing why the article lists the people performing the national anthem and invocation. These parts of a NASCAR race are typically televised by the national channel. So I think it belongs and is not out of place. No one is arguing that the person doing the invocation or the national anthem singer is notable, just that their part in the event deserves a minor amount of space (a sentence or two) in a race summary. There's no policy or guideline on whether or not specific content that belongs in an article. Just discussion on the talk page like we're doing.  Royal broil  00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Wow, that's very rough. Just throwing out a whole bunch of Good Articles from someone just because of the reviewer was a sockpuppet. Terrillija, why didn't you give NASCAR1996 some time to fix the issues? Why didn't you do a standard Good article reassessment on a separate page instead of just delisting without giving NASCAR1996 a chance to fix over the next week or so like the reassessment suggests? I've peer reviewed several of the first articles written by NASCAR1996 and they weren't so bad as to require immediate delisting without discussion.  Royal broil  00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They were given cursory reviews without any actual thought. It is better in the interest of the editors that these are reassessed rather than have questionable reviews, and I saw no reason to do a community reassesment on so many articles. If they are good, the reassessment will say so. I have mentioned some issues on other articles as well, but a few that come up here, just glancing: "Jamie McMurray led them to the green flag"- Prose, who? "After all lead lap cars pitted" Meaning who, the first 10 cars, 2 cars? And pitted should be wikilinked to wikipedia or Wiktionary, the meaning is not clear to someone who is not familiar with nascar. "On lap 190, McMurray brought the field to the green flag. " Absolutely no clue what this is supposed to mean. " Reutimann led the field to the green flag, but, one lap later, debris caused..." Very awkward reading. Too many commas or just general grammar wonkiness. "After the lead lap cars pitted, Denny Hamlin led them on the restart on lap 347. " Led the lead cars? Everyone? Who? "after final inspection after the race," Again, awkward. "The reasons for the penalty were unapproved rear gear and for unapproved door braces." No clue what rear gear is. Something related to the suspension perhaps? Who knows, the article doesn't say or link to an explanation. In addition, there is the blow by blow of the race (which I do not feel is proper prose, something another reviewer has brought up on a smilar article), but there is no outside information on the lead in, how drivers were doing overall, any other factors that would be significant to the race. The other articles all have similar issues, I don't have the time to individually reassess all of them to the depth required for GAN or I would have done so myself. I haven't even given it a long look yet and I still haven't moved beyond criterion 1a.-- Terrillja talk  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the race summary some. Could you please point out a couple more problems? -- Nascar 1996  14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate to have a GA delisted like this, but the issues do need addressing. How about I pick up this review? I'll try to pick it to pieces :) Airplaneman   ✈  15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy if you'd review it. -- Nascar 1996  15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)