Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Sylvania 300/archive1

2010 Sylvania 300
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is my goal to pass FA criteria. The article just passed GA, and now I am heading toward FA. While doing so, I would like others comments. I am aware that there are few comma misplacements, though.

Thanks,  Nascar  1996   06:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Itl ooks like this has all of the information needed to meet the WP:WIAFA comprehensiveness criterion, but I think the language needs a fair amount of work before it would meet criterion 1a (professional level of English). In addition, there are some other issues, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will go through section by section, but a few general points first. One is to avoid WP:OVERLINKing. For example Clint Bowyer is linked 12 times in the article. The rule of thumb is to link the first time in the lead, and most editors will also link the first time in the body of the article (This has 4 or 5 links to him in the body). Links in the infobox, tables, and captions are also generally OK, but even there does he need to be linked twice in the infobox?
 * Another is that according to the WP:MOS, once a person has been introduced they are generally referred to by just their last name - so use "Clint Bowyer" the first time and then just Bowyer after that. If two people have the same last name, then use their full names to avoid confusion.
 * A third is that the article seems to rely a lot on direct quotations, often of fairly mundane statements. I would try to paraphrase most of these and just leave the direct quotes for really important or memorable statements. One example  Greg Biffle said, "I think that I'm capable of winning it. I think Jeff Burton's capable of winning it. I think Tony Stewart is capable of winning it."[11] Other drivers, such as Jimmie Johnson stated, "What I keep telling myself is that those 10 races in the Chase is its own world. The people act and react differently under pressure, and for the last four years we have done a great job in that environment."[11] could be something like  Greg Biffle said he thought he or Jeff Burton or Tony Stewart were "capable of winning it".[11] Jimmie Johnson observed "that those 10 races in the Chase is its own world. The people act and react differently under pressure...".[11]
 * A fourth item is to watch tenses - all of this happened in the past, so I think unless it is a direct quote, the article should use past tense. So things like Mark Martin is the race's defending champion.[10] in Background read oddly and are now untrue (since Bowyer is the defending champion tight now).
 * Infobox WP:UNITS says to provide conversions from all English units to metric units, so fix Mostly sunny with high around 79; wind out of the NW at 3 mph. Since the race is in the past, I would also either say "No rain." or just leave the chance of precipitation out of the infobox all together
 * Lead This sentence is really unclear and confusing, how can it be both the 27th and the 1st race? Contested over 300 laps, it was the 27th, as well as the first race in the Chase for the Sprint Cup during the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season. suggest changing it to something like The 300 lap race was the 27th in the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, as well as the first race in the ten-race Chase for the Sprint Cup, which ends the season. Not sure if you want to give the distance here or not.
 * Wherever possible, avoid passive voice. So this The race was won by Clint Bowyer, of the Richard Childress Racing team. could be something like Clint Bowyer, of the Richard Childress Racing team, won the race. This is also tighter (more concise)
 * Does the lead really need to note that McMurray started in fourth? If this is important, why not give the start postions for 1st and 2nd too? Since the first sentence of the next paragraph tells us Bowyer started 2nd, why not say that here? If anything, isn't the second place finish starting in 11th place more notable?
 * ✅ (removed)
 * Second paragraph has a lot of room for improvement. The first sentence could be tightened a lot Pole position driver Brad Keselowski maintained his lead on the first lap to begin the race, as Clint Bowyer, who started in the second position on the grid, remained behind him . Aside from telling us Bowyer started second (which seems like a better fit in the first paragraph), does the lead really need to tell us he stayed behind the leader in the first lap? Also, since the first lap is specified, "to begin the race" is redundant.
 * Second sentence: One lap later, Tony Stewart became the leader of the race. "of the race" seems like it could be cut here - what else would he be the leader of? I would combine the first and second sentences to something like Pole position driver Brad Keselowski maintained his lead in the first lap, but in the second lap Tony Stewart became the leader.
 * More tightening possible here  Some of the Chase for the Sprint Cup participants, such as Jimmie Johnson, Kurt Busch, and Denny Hamlin were in the top ten for most of the race, but in the closing laps all of them had problems, like spins. I think "such as spins" reads better
 * Rough Hamlin was the only one to recover back into the top five. could be something like Hamlin was the only one to recover and finish in the top five.
 * I do not understand these two sentences together. With two laps remaining, Tony Stewart was leading the race when he ran out of fuel, giving the lead to Clint Bowyer. Bowyer maintained the lead to win the race, after leading 176 laps. First we are told Stewart was leading with 2 laps to go, then we are told Bowyer won "after leading 176 laps". To me this sounds like Bowyer was leading the last 176 laps of the race, but then how was Stewart in the lead with 2 laps left? If it means that Bowyer lead for a total of 176 of the 300 laps, then say that.
 * Third paragraph - this sentence seems out of place here (and could be tightened): There were eight cautions and twenty-three lead changes among eight different drivers throughout the course of the race. I would move it to the second paragraph right after Stewart takes over the lead in the second lap. The following material is already at least partly about the end of the race (Hamlin's finish).
 * Clarify this by adding the time frame: Bowyer's first win in the 2010 season, and the third of his career. The result moved Bowyer up to second in the Drivers' Championship, thirty-five points behind Hamlin and ten ahead of Kevin Harvick, but because of a penalty [three days after the race], he fell to twelfth in the standings.
 * I would add the word "points" here: Chevrolet maintained its lead in the Manufacturers' Championship, thirty-two [points] ahead of Toyota...
 * OK, so having pointed out all of the rough language in the lead, I think it is clear this needs a copyedit, preferably from a fresh pair of eyes, before it would have a chance at FAC. A few more comments follow.
 * Why do all the nine other intermediate tracks need to be listed here? How does that help the reader better understand this race?
 * When people are tied, they are usually tied at the same place. So A and B were tied for 4th and C was in 6th place. This does not follow that (is there some tie-breaker in NASCAR?)
 * Just over half the refs are to NASCAR itself. Are there other sources that could be used?
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details
 * Third paragraph - this sentence seems out of place here (and could be tightened): There were eight cautions and twenty-three lead changes among eight different drivers throughout the course of the race. I would move it to the second paragraph right after Stewart takes over the lead in the second lap. The following material is already at least partly about the end of the race (Hamlin's finish).
 * Clarify this by adding the time frame: Bowyer's first win in the 2010 season, and the third of his career. The result moved Bowyer up to second in the Drivers' Championship, thirty-five points behind Hamlin and ten ahead of Kevin Harvick, but because of a penalty [three days after the race], he fell to twelfth in the standings.
 * I would add the word "points" here: Chevrolet maintained its lead in the Manufacturers' Championship, thirty-two [points] ahead of Toyota...
 * OK, so having pointed out all of the rough language in the lead, I think it is clear this needs a copyedit, preferably from a fresh pair of eyes, before it would have a chance at FAC. A few more comments follow.
 * Why do all the nine other intermediate tracks need to be listed here? How does that help the reader better understand this race?
 * When people are tied, they are usually tied at the same place. So A and B were tied for 4th and C was in 6th place. This does not follow that (is there some tie-breaker in NASCAR?)
 * Just over half the refs are to NASCAR itself. Are there other sources that could be used?
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details
 * Why do all the nine other intermediate tracks need to be listed here? How does that help the reader better understand this race?
 * When people are tied, they are usually tied at the same place. So A and B were tied for 4th and C was in 6th place. This does not follow that (is there some tie-breaker in NASCAR?)
 * Just over half the refs are to NASCAR itself. Are there other sources that could be used?
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details