Talk:2011 Subway Fresh Fit 500/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I will start this review shortly. Looks good! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Review

Just a few questions about the prose.


 * Race
 * "competition caution was scheduled for the 40th lap in the race" - what is a competition caution and why is it scheduled for a particular lap during the race?
 * ✅ Linked to Glossary of motorsport terms. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Three laps later, Newman overtook the lead after passing Newman," - must be a typo
 * ✅ Changed to Hamlin instead of Newman. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "and Kenseth became the leader. After the green flag pit stops concluded, Johnson continued to be the leader," - is something left out here?
 * Are you thinking of the pit stops are left out? --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But when did Johnson become the leader, if after the pit stops concluded, Johnson continued to be the leader? What am I missing. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He was the leader, then while making his pit stop he lost the lead to Kenseth, then when everyone else pitted he got the lead back. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 03:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Post-race
 * Although Kyle Busch was leading the race near the end, Gordon passed him with nine laps left - why is this in the "Post-race" as it sounds like it happened during the race?
 * I placed this here because it gives the reader some knowledge of how the race finished without reading the race summary section. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything else looks good. I did a little copy editing and disambiged a couple of links. Please feel free to change any mistakes.

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: