Talk:2013 Mudsummer Classic

Broadcasters

If anyone watched the race, can someone add the SPEED broadcasters? I remember one of them was Michael Waltrip, but I don't remember the other(s). I'd do it myself, but it's the early morning right now and I don't want to wake anyone up listening to highlights. ZappaOMati 12:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the SPEED crew is usually Rick Allen, Waltrip and Phil Parsons in the booth, Hermie Sadler and Ray Dunlap in the pits with Krista Voda as host. I believe Clint Bowyer was a special guest analyst with Voda, and Bob Dillner was a third reporter in the pits for Eldora only? Craig(talk) 13:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's Fox Sports' in-house blog (which makes it a WP:RS) that lists the announcers: [1], Craig has it right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 Mudsummer Classic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The359 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hello there, I'll be reviewing your article for GA over the next few days. You have a good start, just need some things ironed out before I can pass it. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think the overwhelming problem here is that the article changes tense from sentence to sentence. Articles should generally be in the past tense, and in many instances present tense is used here, as well as some occasional use of future tense. There are also some problems with the timeline (the article discusses Eldora's layout, then mentions NASCAR's announcement in November, then mentions a test that happens the month prior, then mention something in January, before going back to a quote from NASCAR again in November.) Some sentences also are confusing: Discussing the non-Truck series participants you open stating that there were several dirt-track ringers, but the way in which they are listed makes it confusing as the common reader is not likely to know why their history is worth mentioning. This includes redundant mentions of drivers who had past success at Eldora. Another is the mention of the last time NASCAR raced on dirt: Either you should concentrate on the last race held on dirt, or mention the last season to feature dirt races. There is also redundant mention fo Austin Dillon winning the race in the introduction. Another problem is an overabundant use of commas when there really should not be. Oh, and another thing I forgot, I removed the links in the bold section of the race title per MOS:BOLDTITLE. A mention of the event sponsors should be made somewhere else in the article so that they can be properly linked. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

   • One change so far regarding the last time NASCAR raced on dirt, removing the last season a dirt race was held and instead replacing it with the last national series race on dirt. For the Dillon lead mention, I'm assuming you mean the portion where it lists the top 3 in the first paragraph, then "and Dillon claimed the victory after he retained the lead on the green–white–checker finish for his first win of 2013 and fifth in the Truck Series." It is pretty common practice for motorsports articles to mention the "podium" finishers, followed by a brief summary of the race later in the lead, though if it still doesn't seem right, I'll remove it. NFLisAwesome 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

   • I think my thinking when I wrote that was that it seemed to make sense to list the podium finishers at the end of the brief review of the events of the race, but I think it may be better to have the second and third paragraphs merged, they are roughly still covering the same thing so there's no need for there to be a break. That way we have the race winners followed immediately by the review. The mentions of the format I think is what throws it off from other motorsports articles in that it is mixed into the review. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Only problem I have found is that your reference for Joe Cobb is no longer working, you should try and get an archive of the article. All other references are good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are a few minor problems of lacking information that might be relevant to readers who are not followers of NASCAR. First, there is no explanation of why some drivers did not score points in the race, and in addition to that there should be some prose in the point standings section at the end which explains any movement among the top ten. I believe there should also be mention of the fact that Eldora does not have a pit lane, typical of every other NASCAR track, and therefore the breaks in the main race were so that tire changes and repairs could be made. Another point is that you link to the beneficiary rule, but there is no real explanation of why it was needed. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe caution flag laps did not count in all the events, so this should be mentioned. Saying that an accident occurred one lap after a previous caution might confuse some motorsport enthusiasts used to running laps under caution.

   • Let see: Added the non-points rule; added the no pits; lucky dog rule explained; caution flags do count. I'll get to the other ones later on. Zappa(5–7)Mati 05:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see any POV problems.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problem here.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are relevant and non-free media has proper rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Half of this is gold, just need to polish the prose.

Alright, looks like things have been squared away. Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy time of year, but you have yourself another Good Article. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)