Talk:2011 Subway Fresh Fit 500/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Hi,

I will start this review shortly. Looks good! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Review

Just a few questions about the prose.

• Race

• "competition caution was scheduled for the 40th lap in the race" - what is a competition caution and why is it scheduled for a particular lap during the race?
  •  Done Linked to Glossary of motorsport terms#C. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Three laps later, Newman overtook the lead after passing Newman," - must be a typo
  •  Done Changed to Hamlin instead of Newman. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• "and Kenseth became the leader. After the green flag pit stops concluded, Johnson continued to be the leader," - is something left out here?
  • Are you thinking of the pit stops are left out? -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • But when did Johnson become the leader, if after the pit stops concluded, Johnson continued to be the leader? What am I missing. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • He was the leader, then while making his pit stop he lost the lead to Kenseth, then when everyone else pitted he got the lead back. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Post-race

• Although Kyle Busch was leading the race near the end, Gordon passed him with nine laps left - why is this in the "Post-race" as it sounds like it happened during the race?
  • I placed this here because it gives the reader some knowledge of how the race finished without reading the race summary section. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything else looks good. I did a little copy editing and disambiged a couple of links.[1] Please feel free to change any mistakes.

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)