Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 UAW-Ford 500/archive4


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015.

2006 UAW-Ford 500

 * Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the CampingWorld.com 500 for sponsorship reasons. This is my fourth attempt to promote this article to FA status, the last three failed mainly due to prose issues and a lack of response. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - I maintain my previous stance on this article from the previous three nominations. The quality of the article is much improved since it was copy-edited by the GOCE. There is only two minor points I raise after going through the article:
 * You should ideally add a plainlist template in the ratings section of the infobox per UBLIST.
 * Furthermore, it would be a good idea to archive links to those that do not have it to prevent link rot (except for Racing-Reference which does not have links stored at the Internet Archive because of robots.txt) Z105space   (talk)  18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I used the template and have been archiving all the links used in the article as I've been going along. Once the links die, I'll replace the links. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose –I'll take a deeper look into the article later but at a glance I noted a major 1b issue: How do we have an article about a race and not include the finishing times? Note: I realize NASCAR scoring is more complicated than just the finishing times, but I believe that is a basic detail that should be included. –Grondemar 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the margin of victory, there was none, since the race ended under caution (if you follow F1, this is the equivalent of the safety car). If you want the amount of time the race was completed in, I can look into that further and see if I can find a source, but again, NASCAR scoring, as you noted, is more complicated so I'm not sure I can do much with that. Still, thanks for the review! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it possible at least to include something in the text and table indicating that since the race finished under caution, no finish time nor margin of victory was recorded? I will try to perform a full review of the text this weekend. –Grondemar 03:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably, I'm busy at the moment as well. I'll see what I can do this weekend. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried adding something into the post-race section. Better? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've struck my oppose above. I still haven't had the chance to dig through the article but will try to do so this weekend.  Sorry for the delay. –Grondemar 19:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see the article has had three (3) previous FAC nominations and it looks like the nominator has taken those to heart and improved upon the writing quality since then. Minor quibbles only here: I'd recommend trimming down the use of quotes but particularly in the sect Post-race comments which is over reliant upon them. Try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming down total size of quotes used. Also, strongly recommend using archiveurl= and archivedate= fields in cites to archive hyperlinks to Internet Archive, to improve posterity of article in long term. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Haven't checked to see how much of this is repeat coverage, though I'm sure Engle 2006 might help to expand the background section. The Grey Lady is also a good source to have, in general. 23W 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Will comment where I can. Digging through EBSCO I've found a few print sources that may provide some valuable pre- and post-race coverage:

Support. I supported an earlier FAC but missed repeating that support last time round; sorry about that. I've done some more copyediting; please revert if I messed anything up. Still looks good enough for the bronze star to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate to pester, but this is now the third-to-last article in the "Older nominations" section and I will NOT be very happy if I need to renominate this after a two-week waiting period for a fifth time. With that, I am asking that you both comment and support if you believe the article is in good enough shape. It appears by his user page that Ian is not yet fully back, so I'm not asking for a full review, but please let me know if there are still any minor additional tasks I need to complete before promotion is considered. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – images and sources remain sound, as in my previous review. The prose is slightly repetitive in places, but that's more due to the format of the race itself than the quality of the writing. Sorry it's taken me so long to put pen to paper; I have been looking over it. Harrias talk 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It has literally been a month since this was touched. Is my only choice now to repeat the process for a fifth time, or has this garnered enough support for promotion? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just saw the wikibreak notice, so I'll ping as well. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.