Talk:2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350/GA1

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * If you want to pursue FA status, you need to flesh out the prose a bit. It's good enough for a GA, though.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few more third party references will be needed for an FA.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would recommend requesting a peer review at FA level if you are aiming for FA status. Your hard work has paid off; you now can claim credit for another of Wikipedia's good articles. I had fun reviewing the article and working with you. Congratulations! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would recommend requesting a peer review at FA level if you are aiming for FA status. Your hard work has paid off; you now can claim credit for another of Wikipedia's good articles. I had fun reviewing the article and working with you. Congratulations! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend requesting a peer review at FA level if you are aiming for FA status. Your hard work has paid off; you now can claim credit for another of Wikipedia's good articles. I had fun reviewing the article and working with you. Congratulations! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Detailed review
I'm going to take it section by section. All unsigned comments are mine (so don't forget to sign your posts! ) in order to reduce clutter. Finished tasks can be streaked with a strike-through line.


 * Lead and infobox
 * Since the information isn't repeated later in the article, I need references for the second and third sentences in the lead: "It was the sixteenth race of the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season and began at 3 p.m. EDT. In the United States, it was televised live on TNT and radio coverage was broadcast on Performance Racing Network starting at 2 p.m. EDT." Also, were both broadcasts begun at 2 pm, or just the radio? That needs to be clarified as well.
 * Done; I reworded it like on 2010 Showtime Southern 500. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph, last sentence: define "caution".
 * I linked it. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Was going to ask for a race summary as well, but the lead you are prepping in your sandbox should take care of that.
 * Do you think it is good enough, I'm finished with it. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  22:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a mention about how this is a road course race, (one of two in the season, correct?) as most NASCAR races are on speedways. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are currently 2 Cup races on road courses.  Royal broil  02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be mentioned in the lead.
 * ✅ :) -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  20:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Flagicons should not be used in the infobox in this case, as they emphasize the drivers' home states. Citing MOS:ICON, I don't think knowing the drivers' home states is important nor relevant.
 * Upon further research, I found Template:NASCAR race season infobox. I think it would be good to discuss the relevance of the parameters "pole state", "most state", and "first state" at WT:NASCAR.
 * Okay will be removed! :) -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Background
 * Cleaned it up. How does it look?
 * Good, good job! :) -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Practice and qualifying
 * Since there were three practice sessions, I think a more appropriate header name would be "Practices and qualifying"
 * ✅ ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference number 1 does not support the statements referencing it. As you can see, it only provides info on the next race. This probably needs to be fixed on other pages as well.
 * ✅ Only to this page. Will fix rest of GA's later. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you spot the error here? During qualifying, forty-six cars were entered, but only forty-three was able to race because of NASCAR's qualifying procedure. :).
 * No, also you have new messages at your talk page.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Was->were. Fixed in linked copyedit below.
 * Not sure what Kurt Busch qualified third after having problems through the esses means (last paragraph).
 * I guess remove because of no reference, well the TV said it. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done; copyedited the whole section. There is one unsourced statement that is tagged.
 * Haha.....Hummmmm a citiation for that, well it would have to be dry because NASCAR cannot practice, qualify, or race in wet conditions. Again *(giggle)*. Face-smile.svg -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then find a source that says that NASCAR cannot practice, etc. in wet conditions.
 * I removed it, ots not really notible-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Race
 * Who is Tim Boeve?
 * I don't know, I just know that he said either the command or prayer-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick Google bring up this.
 * Okay so what do you want me to do?  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a better source.
 * ...and done.
 * Most of the summary is supported by one reference, number 19. I need one or two more third party sources.
 * That is one thing I do not understand: What are third party references? This is about the only one with that much infomration. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Third party sources means not NASCAR. Per your post on my talk, it looks like you found a good one. And it is fine if the reliable third party ref doesn't have as much info. That is why you have the primary one from NASCAR.com. The others serve as an additional means of verification.
 * Where I found that one reference and placed it is some places are we finished with this? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll see. We're not done 'till this passess or fails.
 * Nascar, you could use Racing-Reference.info - but even better would be race coverage from Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc. In this case I think NASCAR's website is fine to use for certain parts like statistics since there should be no problems with meeting WP:SELFPUB.  Royal broil  02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would take RoyalBroil's suggestions; I need at least one or two more third party sources in the race section. Right now, the only third party source is reference number 3 at the very end of the section, discounting NASCAR Europe.
 * If I can I will, if I don't well I quess I can't. As of now I'm on the fourth page and nothing.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think anything is valuable on this? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, most definitely :). The source looks reliable and is owned by ESPN, so I'd say give it a go.
 * It was the only one I could find reliable. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  04:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's enough. This article is definitely GA quality (for FA, we need more sources (and fleshed-out prose)!!!) I'll give it one more read before passing to see if there are any remaining issues.
 * Maybe after this you can help me create WP:NASCAR's first Featured Article. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every sentence should be referenced so there is no doubt that the events actually happened. I know that you are putting citations at the end of paragraphs, but after you find more references, it would be nice to do that. Another option would be to put all references at the very beginning of the section. Here is an example. This saves you from referencing every sentence and confirms to the reader that everything is sourced.
 * The link you gave me does not have the refs at the beginning of the paragraph. There are not a lot of racing refs like the Lap-by Lap, but I will look. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm... yes it does: "The specifications below are from Apple's "tech specs" page[9] or developer notes,[10] except where noted."
 * I always mess up on the references: like on my first article, User:Royalbroil told me to add the refs to the end when I put it before, while now your telling me the opposite. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you put the refs at the very beginning like in Mac Pro and you were told otherwise?
 * Yes. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  17:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well not exactly like MacPro I put ut at the beginning of every paragraph.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was looking for something like Mac Pro… anyway, I asked RoyalBroil about it.
 * I seen the edit, as I am wathcing his talk page, and I am completely fine adding the refs at the end of every sentence. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always seen references at the end of each sentence - that's how I do it and how I'd expect to see here. See Alan Kulwicki for a NASCAR example of what's close to Featured Article level. You'll notice an occasional thought that extends into 2 or 3 sentences. In those cases, the reference has been added at the last sentence of the group. I think you're thinking about the table in the article. Usually a reference that covers all or part of a table is placed at the first piece of information which came from that source. My opinion is that the best source for statistics in a race results table would be the official source - NASCAR.  Royal broil  02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. In that case, the current referencing looks fine at first glance.

A few lingering concerns:
 * Please define "pace laps" (first paragraph).
 * Wow, I can't believe Parade lap or pace lap is on here. Wow. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph, first sentence: On lap 100, Bowyer and Sadler both spun out because Jeff Gordon went through the corner faster than normal - needs source. The source given doesn't mention Gordon.
 * Someone swaid I can use the television show to source this, but I forgot how. I guess remove the non mentioning part "went through the corner faster than normal".-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not in that source, but it is in the NASCAR rewind video. It showes Jeff Gordon bumping Sadler into Bowyer. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * Post-race
 * I tweaked the section a bit; nothing major needed to be fixed.


 * Race results
 * Like in my last review, please add some prose on who won, etc. (like in the lead). It doesn't have to be substantial, as much (but not all) is already covered in the post-race section.
 * Substanial? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  14:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking for something like this, but if you want to base the format off 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, you may leave it as just a table. Could you add qualifying results in a table? Instead, can you add finishing results (top five, the lead changes, number of cautions, etc.) in a final paragraph in the "race" section?
 * How do you like the shortened links in qualifying?-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice and clean :).
 * You chose a good time to do this since after today I will have 14 days until the next race. I would like it to be that other way because it would also show who didn't make the race and their times.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review my sandbox to see if that is a better table format. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REPEATLINK, all terms linked should be linked on every occurrence because the results are in a table.
 * ✅. I could do this to all of the other NASCAR articles if you think this is a good idea. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that may be a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to link the policy in your edit summaries, though :)
 * Standings after the race
 * Ref #24 (also used for drivers' champ. table) does not list manuafacturers' champ. points. Please fix.
 * ✅-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Miscellany
 * A course description would be nice (I'm thinking a good place for it would be in the "background" section, with a mention in the lead, as it is a road course, not the normal NASCAR venue).
 * Hey I could add the photo from Infineon Raceway. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please re-add the race logo. I was thinking maybe a paragraph or two about the track; maybe the track photo can go with it.
 * In my opinion, if they wanted to see what the track is like click Infineon Raceway in the infobox. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that would just take them to the image, not the article.
 * Course description and image added.
 * No, the Infineon Raceway link under hte image takes you to that article. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that the "race results" section is standalone and not a subsection of "race report", which I find a bit redundant to begin with? Is there even a need for the "race report" section? Please enlighten me :).
 * The format is very similair to 2008 Monaco Grand Prix. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. In that case, may you please add some tables for the top five in standings and the manufacturer's championships under the race results?
 * ✅ -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added everything to the results table. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good.
 * About this – advisor.js is usually only for article use. See WP:TPO on editing others' comments. I don't mind, but it's just a heads up.
 * Okay, this is only a GA review, I am not worried about that. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)