Talk:2010 Kobalt Tools 500 (Phoenix)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Good article2010 Kobalt Tools 500 (Phoenix) 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 21, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Kobalt Tools 500 (Phoenix)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall nice work here. Just has a few quibbles that need working on.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Nice work here. Do have a few quibbles, however. To wit:
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Article is fully and factually referenced, with citations throughout and free of WP:OR. I do have a quibble with the citation style used though, as it may be unclear to some viewers. I'd suggest using the following for certain sites, with the format work=/publisher=: Rotoworld.com = Rotoworld/NBC Sports; NASCAR.Com = NASCAR.com/Turner Sports; Jayski.com = Jayski's Silly Season Site/ESPN; racing-reference.info = Racing=Reference/USA Today Sports Media Group; MotorRacingNetwork.com = Motor Racing Network/International Speedway Corporation. Also, I'm not sure Auto Racing Daily is universally recognised as a reliable source, would it be possible to perhaps cite a newspaper report instead, like The Charlotte Observer's?
      Done... I had to change the quotes while I was at it... -- Nascar1996(TalkContribs) 20:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Article covers the event well and broadly without needless digression.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Article is neutral.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  5. 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):  
    Images are appropriate, appropriately licensed, and captioned.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Very close, just needs attention to the issues above; placed on hold until then. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Looks like I have fixed all of the problems you have expressed. -- Nascar1996(TalkContribs) 20:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
    And pass, good work! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Kobalt Tools 500 (Phoenix). 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) 04:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply