Template:Did you know nominations/Ford G7

Ford G7

 * ... that the Ford G7 only finished one out of the 15 races it competed in?

Created by Lukeno94 (talk). Nominated by Buffbills7701 (talk) at 21:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg It's an interesting article, new enough, long enough, and adequately sourced, with a good hook. Spot-checking found no issues with copied or closely paraphrased text. The hook can be sourced by the final reference . This appears to be only the second nomination for Buffbills7701, so there is no review requirement. However I have three minor issues: (1) The hook fact is stated in the article (in the lead) but is not ever stated with a source, giving the article the appearance of violating WP:SYN (it's not a violation, as the fact in question can be found by a simple calculation from the information in a single source, but it looks like one). (2) The source in question lists 16 races, not 15. (3) There are really only two sources, both web sites of somewhat dubious reliability. Can you find some additional sources that have actually been published? I'm not concerned about the correctness and verification of the information in the article but something more solid would make a more convincing case for notability. Searching google books for "ford g7a" seems to find a few good hits, so I hope these issues should all be easy to fix. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't vouch 100% for the reliability of Sportscars.tv; I've only ever used it once. However, Racing Sports Cars is generally reliable, albeit not always 100% complete in some of the more obscure series (Can-Am is obviously not an obscure series.) Equally, although the source shows 16 races, it only competed in 15 - "DNA" means did not attend; so an entry was lodged, but no car ever ran, even in practice. explicitly states 15 races, with 1 finish. :)  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein: I've put that ref in the lead, so this hook now has a ref. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Was there a reason you didn't want to look for book sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the simple matter that I missed that bit! Oops. If I get time, I will do so, but what's in the article should be enough for now. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ok, I'm sure there's more improvement possible on the article, but that's not a good reason to continue holding up the DYK. Good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)