Talk:2010 Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips 400/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Derild4921☼ 21:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Back again! Seeing how this is a very old nominee I'll review this now. Derild4921☼ 21:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even recongnize that I had another up for review. Humm? Nascar1996 22:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's from 2 months ago. lol. Derild4921☼ 22:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I need to redo most of the sources. They are from June. After this race, I really improved my writing skills. Nascar1996 22:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't look as well written as your other GA's. Derild4921☼ 22:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will not be as active as I normally am. I am busy tomorrow, while being sick. Nascar1996 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like NSD will help along here. Derild4921☼ 00:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Count me in :). Airplaneman ✈ 13:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be out today for a soccer tournament. I'll be one tomorrow. Derild4921☼ 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In depth review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• Lead has to be expanded as with the other NASCAR article you've written.
  • Also, references in the lead are unnecessary. Since the lead summarizes the least of the article the information should be mentioned later and cited there.
    •  Done Nascar1996 22:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Some terms and phrases are confusing such as "Three drivers had to move to the rear from a change after first practice". What is a "Change"?
  • "On the same lap, Todd Bodine drove his car to the garage." I'm assuming a "garage is a place to fix the car, but be more specific with a link or explaining the term.
    •  Done Nascar1996 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The race summary section uses the phrases On lap # and By lap # a lot; try cutting those down.

There are too many, I do not have enough tiime to completely reword it like the newer articles, but I'll see what I can do. Nascar1996 00:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I cut down some, how is it now? Nascar1996 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks better now and I took some time to change a few others. Derild4921☼ 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

This is broken. It is right now ref 12. Find an alternative please.

I have replaced that link. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

Basing off the other article this needs Background and Post-Race sections.

 Done --Nascar1996 20:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, add a "Standings after the race" section if there are any sources for this. Derild4921☼ 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nascar1996 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ref please. After I read through the article one more time, we should be done! Derild4921☼ 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nascar1996 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congrats! I have passed the article! Derild4921☼ 23:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from other editors

• In the lead, it says claim his fourth win of the season for Hamlin in paragraph 2, yet in paragraph 3, it says Hamlin's fifth win of the season. Which is it? Either way, I would remove one of the mentions (I'd go for removing the one in paragraph 3) as they are redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Nascar1996 12:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Checklinks reveals one dead link, which I have tagged. Airplaneman ✈ 03:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nascar1996 12:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)