Talk:Evo Street Racers

Neutrality issues
Other than the glaringly obvious use of peacock terms, press release jargon other promotional COI language on this page, the core issue with this article is the claim that this organization is credible and is recognized as an authority on anything.

They have told Good Morning America and other media that they are terribly significant, and media have repeated it. But where is the independent evidence that Evo Street Racers has any credibility in the racing world?--Dbratland (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I re-reviewed the transcripts from the interviews and publications to which this organization has been published. I do not see any evidence, including the Good Morning America interview, that during the interview the organization is claiming that they are “terribly significant.” The transcripts just have answers to the questions which was asked of this organization.

Furthermore, regardless of people’s personal view the major national news stations ABC, National Public Radio (NPR), ESPN, CNN, and NY Times are designed to be impartial and independent in reporting. They scrutinize the people, companies, organizations, and sources that they feature, mention, or reference. It was as a result of this organization’s position within America which resulted in their inclusion in those articles. For example, National Public Radio for their larger 30 minute news program “Talk of the Nation” featured three people, a paramedic at the scene of an illegal street racing accident, a professor from Nevada that wrote a study on illegal street racing, and Evo Street Racers. NPR, one of the largest and most well respected independent news broadcasters on the radio, could have chosen anyone in the motorsports industry from the NHRA to NASCAR and anyone in-between and they didn’t, they choose this organization. Even smaller outlets such as the Charlotte Parent, Dumb Drum, The Examiner, the Hometown Gazette, and Automotive Performance News have featured and/or mentioned this organization.

A concern with this article may be related to the vernacular which should there be a problem in this area then it should be cleaned up based on the recommendations of a Wiki editor.

ELandry1979 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any particular arguments that this article doesn't qualify under WP:N, but it is the matter of sourcing that is the concern and cause for all the tags. The notability is met by those other resources, but third-party materials need to be found. From the researching I did I don't think that would be terribly difficult. Datheisen (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality What Issues!?
The page has changed a lot in a week! I took all but one of those pesky formatting tags off the page as I couldn't even come close to inventing a reason to keep them. The only generic one I left is a reminder to myself to read through all the citations later; any editor who is content with the scope and content of the page is free to delete now and compare to the last bulk of significant edits. I also solved that oddity with the "steps" section and formatting. From here? The next step would probably be categories and an infobox, but as it is now there's not enough content yet to not make it not clutter up things. Perhaps a section break if you can fill out the bottom part of the article in terms of group activities... you could have a background-history-activities type of setup as it grows, I can see. You might also want to look into a few categories that suit the group, and I'm sure there are basic templates for tagging for any number of aspects to the (leagal) street tuning scene. That by itself doesn't improve the article, but it does make it more comprehensive and it make Wikipedia as a whole better if people can more easily find information on what they're looking for. Now, just find a way to get everyone you ever hear who ever gets a PROD of AfD tag on one of their articles to talk it out and work through article issues to do the same and there'll be no need for such silly oversight. Especially since the improvements have all been completed voluntarily with pretty simple peer comments and discussion, I'll probably leave this page on watch as a reminder that once every dozen-or-so articles in trouble, some contributors will actually look at it constructively. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)