Talk:2010 Auto Club 500

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Good article2010 Auto Club 500 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 10, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
August 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Auto Club 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SamH (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'll post a review soon. SamH (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that the main problem with this article is that there needs to be more background information and explanation about the race. Currently the article contains most of the bare facts but doesn't offer enough explanation for people who are not familiar with NASCAR. Specific points that I think should be added or clarified are:

Other info that would be nice but I don't think is necessary for a good article:

  • Any noteworthy incidents in the practice and qualifying sessions. E.g crashes, stoppages, ruction between competitors.
  • How many spectators attended and how many watched on TV. How did these compare to other races and the same race last year.
  • Was there any international TV coverage?
  • Quotes from the drivers and team personnel.
  • Media assessment of the race and the drivers' performances.

I know it's a different sort of racing, but have a look at this good article for an idea of what sort of info could be included: 2008 French Grand Prix.

Also, the writing seems a bit clunky in places and drivers are linked multiple times. I've had a go at editing it; hope this is OK. All of the other criteria are fine. SamH (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have addressed the important bullet points above. I don't think the five bullet points in the optional section are necessary. ~NerdyScienceDude () 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I made a couple more small changes but two things are still not clear to me. One is why the three drivers didn't qualify. Presumably they didn't set a fast enough time; if so, that should be explicit. Also, the race report on the NASCAR site says Montoya went "into the wall" on lap 141 but the LA Times article says his engine failed on lap 140 and doesn't mention a crash so I'm not quite sure what happened. SamH (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, I think it's close to meeting the requirements but nothing has been done for a while now so I think it has to fail. :( SamH (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Auto Club 500/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airplaneman 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

In order to save space, all unsigned comments are mine.

  • Closing comments: Thanks to all who participated for addressing the issues quickly. Because of that, the article has gone from this to this in less than three days. In its current condition, the article meets the good article criteria, and I will pass it. However, I do have a few suggestions for further improvement beyond GA status. Included are the comments under "Other info that would be nice but I don't think is necessary for a good article" in the first GA review. This will help beef up the prose a bit and add a bit more to the article. And, as always, more reliable third party references couldn't hurt. I'm sure there are a couple more out there! Overall, fantastic work. I am more than happy to put {{Good article}} on this article. Airplaneman 01:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
General
Lead/infobox
Background
Practices and qualifying
Race summary
Post-race
Tables
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Auto Club 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply