Talk:2010 TUMS Fast Relief 500/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 08:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this looks like a wonderfully written article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:



**✅ . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "during the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season" season seems redundant here.


 * Duplicate links should be removed per WP:Duplink. You could try this tool to remove such links in mere seconds!
 * Let me know if you need any help with removing duplinks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "brakes" need not be linked (WP:Overlinking).
 * ✅ . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * " Mark Martin finished second and Kevin Harvick, who started thirty-sixth, came third" As the team name for the winner is mentioned, it would be consistent to mention the team names for the second and third as well.
 * ✅ . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Tony Stewart with 5,666 points, was twenty-three points ahead of Carl Edwards and Greg Biffle with 5,618 points was twelve ahead of Kurt Busch, and fourteen in front of Jeff Burton" Here, although I am able to guess the positions of these drivers, it would still be better to mention them explicitly.
 * Partially done . That makes the sentence lose its flow when reading . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Three practice sessions were held before the Saturday race—one on Friday and two on Saturday." Are you able to find the dates?
 * ❌ That's redundant. No other articles have that.  Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Bowyer, David Ragan, A. J. Allmendinger, Gordon, and Joey Logano rounded out the ten drivers who were quickest in the session" Is it in that order? If so, it would be better to mention that. Same here: "Burton, Jamie McMurray, Bobby Labonte, Ragan, and Johnson followed in the top ten"
 * ✅ . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "forty-eight cars were entered but only forty-three was able because of NASCAR's qualifying procedure" This is unclear. Forty-three were able of what? Also, it would be better to mention the qualifying procedure.
 * ✅ . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * " time of 19.518" and "time of 19.799" units?
 * ✅ . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "while Dennis Setzer withdrew from qualifying" Are you able to find out why he withdrew? If so, it would be better to mention the reason.
 * ❌ No sources found . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm Let me know if there is any sort of help that you would need from me! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All your concerns have been addressed except the duplinks.  Kpg  jhp  jm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kpgjhpjm let me know if you would need help with the duplinks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you may want to conclude the review. --MrClog (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MrClog The duplicate links issue was unsolved, which I have done now. Kpgjhpjm The article now looks really nice and good to go for a GA status. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)