Talk:Phoenix Raceway/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is reasonably good, although it could use some grammar cleanup to pass GA standards. It meets the MOS, however I'd say this article is woefully incomplete. See point 3 for details.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The sources are accurate and reliable, but there aren't enough of them, and not nearly enough citations. No doubt there is much more that has been said about the track, even just to verify what's in the article as it is? The limited number of citations makes it difficult to determine what is cited and what is not - a single citation at the end of a paragraph satisfies both B-class and DYK - as it should - but doesn't cut the mustard for B-class.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article doesn't stray from its subject, but it doesn't cover it nearly enough. It gives a good overview of the track, but this isn't what I'd like to see in a GA for a topic such as this - it isn't an obscure subject on which all the sources have been exhausted. How is the Copper World Classic such a marquee event? Why was this site chosen to build a racetrack, and why build one in Phoenix at all, instead of Tuscon, or someplace else? Who built it? How much did it cost? There's nothing in the prose about the track's use for IndyCar racing, only in the stats and that it's used for testing - how long did the IndyCars race there? Why did they stop? And so on, and so on.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is neutral and free of POV, by my eye.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article appears to be reasonably stable, although the Phoenix/Maricopa County cat change recently raises a slight eyebrow as a potential bone of contention among editors.
 * 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):
 * The photos used in the article are appropriately licensed and appropriate, however the captions are rather uninformative, and the number of photos is lacking. I'd prefer to see one of the frontstretch and start/finish line, and surely there's one of Kulwiki's Polish Victory Lap that could be used?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article has promise, but it's in no way ready for Good Article status. Right now, therefore, I regretfully have to fail it's GA nomination. I reccomend expansion, considerably, a bit of cleanup, and additional photographs; do that, and then re-submit, and perhaps we'll be able to add it to the ranks of Good Articles then. Now, though, alas, it's thumbs-down.

This page requires an image of the track layout. That is essential for any Wiki page covering motor sports tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.255.194 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)