Talk:Alan Kulwicki/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Alan Kulwicki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Article Assessment discussions
I disagree with this assesment, and think that Alan should have Top importance, being a former champion in Winston Cup. Casey14 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have reassessed Kulwicki in WikiProject Wisconsin from "low" to "mid" as he is well-known outside of Wisconsin for his racing career in NASCAR: Mid for WikiProject Wisconsin, Top for WikiProject NASCAR, Mid for WPBiography. Royalbroil 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Royalbroil's assessments; Casey14 was correct within the context of WikiProject NASCAR, and that notability was wide enough and strong enough (e.g. having bio articles featured on the cover of Stock Car Racing and other national magazines) to make Kulwicki Mid importance for the Wisconsin and Biography projects. Barno 08:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Peer Review, Review
OK, looking back at my earlier comments:
- "It would be nice to know how Kulwicki originally got into racing - I know the sources are a bit tricky for this one, though." Don't worry about this one. Sometimes there's an interesting story to it, sometimes there isn't. Anyway, if the sources don't exist (I'm assuming you've exhausted what's available), then there's nothing more you can do. Until someone gets a biography published, anyway.
Done - "It would be useful to have more background on what stock car racing is...." Definitely better: perhaps you could add some more general statements. For example, 'Many American dirt ovals run their own championships for local drivers.' which (if true!) would make much of 'Early racing career' clearer (to me, anyway!). You could define what 'short track' means as well (I assume it's the smaller local circuits.) Done
- Not a point I raised before, but what's a 'weekly racer'? Don't most drivers race weekly? Would this be the same thing as a 'weekend racer' (i.e. non-professional?). If so I would use 'amateur' instead. Done Amateur is much better way to word it.
- Again, not a point I raised before, but you've got some links to common concepts that would probably be removed at GA or FA review. (e.g. pickup truck, briefcase, plane crash, pavilion, grandstand, terrace, fad, tribute etc.) Done
- "What is the significance of moving from dirt tracks to paved ones?" I suppose my point is, does it represent a different career path? For example, drivers who start off in what I call single-seaters typically don't go to NASCAR (well, until the last couple of years anyway. There's a flood of them this year, I know). I assume that someone who progressed further on dirt tracks would tend not to end up in NASCAR, but instead in the premier dirt track series. I may be asking for original research here, I suppose...
- Done Definitely original research. There's a wide variety of paths to NASCAR. Many start on dirt tracks. Some advance to top local-level dirt track racing, then change to top local-level asphalt track racing before going regional then national. Others start in dirt and change to asphalt at the lower local levels. Other drivers race asphalt their whole career. So there isn't much significance to moving from dirt to asphalt. The advancement path hasn't changed much from the 1970s until today: it takes luck, skill, and good timing.
- And then some more luck! OK, in that case you're definitely right. 4u1e (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- "A brief overview of the stock car scene in the 1970s might be useful to situate all the different races and series." Built into the text quite nicely, but a couple of general sentences to sum things up (as suggested above) might be good.
- PAUSE (I'll be back later!) 4u1e (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's a slightly longer pause than I'd intended. Anyway:
- "You've occasionally got what sound like quotes written directly into the main text" - Fixed, I'd say. I've tweaked in a couple of places.
- "I wasn't so clear on how Kulwicki got to that point in the season" - Much clearer now, thanks!
And that's it. I was closer than I thought! I'd say this was ready to go for GA, unless there's something significant you're waiting to add? I'll do a quick copy-edit, but perhaps it would be an idea to get someone else with absolutely no knwoledge of motor sports to do a copyedit as well. You could try the League of Copyeditors, but they have a massive backlog at present, or you could try someone from the List of peer review voluteers. Good work. 4u1e (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC), Replies by Royalbroil 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit questions
Simple stuff:
- "The younger Kulwicki finished second in the season points in his division." Was this in his first season?
- Done I took a picture of a karting trophy that says W.K.A. Grand Nationals 72 , AM ?? SR. LT. 2nd PLACE . I have removed that statement since it had dubious history. I don't know exactly where it fits into his career.
- "Richmond's fall race" - better to give a month. Firstly because to some of us 'Fall' is 'Autumn' (again, it's a US article, but it's better to make it as 'nationality-neutral' as possible). Secondly because in the southern hemisphere, fall is spring. Done You're right. I removed "fall" as it is not important. NASCAR has 2 races at many of its tracks. The first one is often in spring (March until June) and the second often in fall (September to November).
--4u1e (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC), replies by Royalbroil 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Picture
I have spoken on the telephone with Father Dale Grubba about getting an image. It looks promising. Royalbroil 19:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
bits
- These are quick notes... sorry if they are atark in the phrasing
- "nation from Wisconsin to the Charlotte, North Carolina area". Why not say "North Carolina"? it would read better.
- Changed to Charlotte without listing its state North Carolina. Charlotte is known as the NASCAR area of the U.S.
- "he was a mechanical engineer when few other drivers had completed college" I think you mead "had not"
- No, few other drivers had college degrees!
- "#35 Quincy's Steakhouse outfit" <--- in English? Is this a car, a garage? a meal or an apron?
- It's a regional restraurant. Changed to team since he actually bought the team from Terry.
- "Finishes"
- It was capitalized in order to explain what DNF is. DNF is an important common NASCAR term, and it is always capitalized.
- average finish of 15.4 .... in English?
- reworded as "averaged a 15.4 finish position"
- "in the third race at Richmond" ... 3rd that day, that year, that season?
- Good catch. Reworded to "in the season's third race at Richmond".
- "finishing less than one second behind winner Dale Earnhardt" was he second or 9th?
- changed to "finishing second less than one second"
- "He led 41 laps late in the race" 41 laps late? means what?
- The 41 laps that he led were led late in the race. Refactored into 2 sentences.
- "In victory lane Kulwicki " In the victory lane... maybe. What is a victory lane? Victory lap?
- Hmm, adding "the" is not how that term is used. He went to victory lane as the winner of the race. It's the special place where the winner goes after his victory lap after the race for a celebration. Another term that means the same thing is "winner's circle". Neither term is listed in wiktionary. Ouch, that's a major oversight there. I defined the term at wiktionary and used an external link to the dictionary explanation. Should it start a Wikipedia article too since I have pictures of the one at Daytona?
- "It's been a long road and it's taken a lot of hard work to get here, but this has made it all worthwhile. When you work for something so hard for so long, you wonder if it's going to be worth all of the anticipation. Believe me, it certainly was. And what do you think of my Polish victory lap? There will never be another first win and you know, everybody sprays champagne or stands up on the car. I wanted to do something different for the fans.... is a "long quote". Set it out as such.
- Thanks for pointing that out.. I didn't know about blockquotes. Done.
- Thats as far as I got Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC), replied by Royalbroil 03:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Another peer review can be found at Talk:Alan Kulwicki/Comments. Royalbroil 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Salmar
As I promised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin, here's what I have to say after looking over this article:
- Looking at the Good article criteria
- 1a Prose is clear and spelling and grammar are correct: I did a bit of copy-editing for spelling and punctuation ((diff); also, see the "things to take a look at", below
- 1b Complies with manual of style: I think so; you might want to take a look at the hyphen use in the "Awards" section of the infobox and WP:DASH (#3 under "en dash", specifically); there is a bit of jargon, but nothing that can't be understood from context/linked articles: the few exceptions are mentioned below
- 2a-c Well and properly referenced: yes; I did notice, however, that some of the refs (#16, at least) don't use any {{cite}} templates; I don't think they're mandatory, but they're probably recommended
- 3a Addresses major aspects of topic: definitely
- 3b Does not go into too much detail: some of the details of the races might be slightly excessive, but I don't think it's too bad
- 4 Neutral: yes
- 5 Stable: I assume so
- 6a Images are tagged with copyright status: yes
- 6b Images are appropriate to article and have suitable captions: yes and yes
- Things to take a look at
- "his scientific methodology approach to NASCAR racing inspired the way teams are currently run" — this sounds a bit odd. Perhaps, "his scientific approach ..." or "the scientific methodology he applied to his approach ..."?
Done
- "he was persistent in driving for his own race team" — this use of "persistent" sounds unusual to me; I would tend towards "he was insistant on driving" or "he persistently drove" ... it's entirely possible that your way is right, too , though.
Done - chose insistant, I used the wrong word.
- The comment about his nicknames seems out of place; perhaps it could go right in the first sentence; "Alan Kulwicki (December 14, 1954 - April 1, 1993), nicknamed "Special K" and "Polish Prince", was an American NASCAR Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup) racecar driver"?
Done
- The phrase "had been raised a Catholic" implies that he no longer is one, but the fact that he raced with a Saint Christopher devotional medal suggests otherwise.
Done reworded to "Kulwicki was raised a Catholic and he showed his faith by racing with a Saint Christopher devotional medal in his racecar."
- is "thirteen-year-old youth" redundant?
Done
- "The increased stiffness allowed the car to turn better in the corner." — "in the corner" sounds funny to me, but perhaps it's a racing term?
Done expanded explanation to include that increased corner speed decreases lap time.
- "winning the track championship in 1977, and then was dominant in 1978." — "dominant" seems vague to me. How does this differ from winning the championship?
Done reworded. I do not have the reference.
- "At the time, the Busch Grand National Series was considered NASCAR's "minor league" circuit, comparable to Triple-A baseball. It is a proving ground for drivers who wish to step up to the organization's "big league" circuit, the Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup)." — WP:WEASEL; is this the opinion of someone in particular, or is it one that is generally held? Either way, there should be an explicit citation for it.
- I need help on this one. It is intended to be a non-controversial background statement to explain to the reader what the Busch Series was at that time in relation to its much bigger brother Winston Cup. Citation would be difficult. The series has greatly gained importance since then, so the statement would no longer be valid for today.
- "Kulwicki started second in his first career race in his hometown of Milwaukee and finished in the same position." — was this his first career race ever ("... his first career race, which took place in his hometown of Milwaukee, ...") or just the first one in Milwaukee ("... in his first career race that took place in Milwaukee, his hometown, ..."
Done reworded to "Kulwicki started in second position in his first career NASCAR race, which occured in his hometown of Milwaukee. He finished second in the race."
- Random observation: I'm fixing these as I come across them, but sometimes when you have two refs in a row, there is an unnecessary space between them
- I wasn't aware that having a space in between was frowned upon. I will not do this in the future.
- "and because he was hands-on in the maintenance of the car to the point of being a control freak." — a bit akward sounding to me, but I can't think of a better way at the moment that's not clunky
- "working long hours, and working under a very limited budget" — "and working long hours under a limited budget"?
Done
- "He qualified first again later in the season" — perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't understand this
Done I was trying to help reinforce to the reader that "pole position" mean "qualified the fastest/first" with that statement. Is "He qualified fastest again later that season at the races at Richmond and Dover." clearer?
- "the 29 event long season" — there's a hyphen missing in there somewhere, but I'm not sure if it should be "29 event-long" or "29-event-long"
Done went with "29 event-long"
- "the season's second last race" — "second-to-last"? "penultimate"?
Done used "second-to-last"
- "Kulwicki won his first NASCAR Winston Cup race in the season's second last race at Phoenix International Raceway. Ricky Rudd's car had motor problems late in the race. Kulwicki led 41 laps and won by 18.5 seconds." — was Ricky Rudd's car problems significant to the outcome of the race?
Done reworded to indicate that Rudd had been the leader.
- "Kulwicki led 41 laps and won by 18.5 seconds." — I may be confused by it, but I believe that this use of "led" is common, and thus won't make any suggestions about changing it. But my first thought which was one of him winning 41 laps ahead of everyone, and yet someone still finishing 18.5 seconds after him, was humorous enough to note here.
Done
- "Kulwicki turned down Johnson's $1,000,000 offer, thinking that he had sponsorship locked up from Maxwell House coffee. Johnson actually had the sponsorship locked up for his second team ..." — "locked up"?
Done reworded to "secured" and dropped citations until ended of section. "Johnson was expanding his operation to a two car team and offered Kulwicki a ride in the second car. Kulwicki turned down Johnson's $1,000,000 offer, thinking that he had secured a sponsorship dealed with Maxwell House coffee. Johnson ended up securing the sponsorship for his second team, so Kulwicki began the season sponsorless, paying expenses out of his own pocket."
- "consistent with other Polish Americans in the cemetery." — I quite understand what this is saying
- Do you mean that you don't quite understand?
- Yes =P Sorry —Salmar (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was a response to a peer review comment to try to add another statement about his Polish American heritage. I went to the cemetery for a picture of his grave. He was buried in a Polish American region in the cemetery, but I can't find a RS. The section has unique family burial plots where members of a family are buried together. Royalbroil 14:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's unique for Poles that families to buried together, especially for children that never married. I see family plots everywhere. If you still want to use it, how about, instead of "consistent with..." use something like "as is common among Polish families." -Freekee (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple three things
I noticed in the story about the Maxwell House deal,
- Johnson was expanding his operation to a two car team and offered Kulwicki a ride in the second car.[28] Kulwicki turned down Johnson's $1,000,000 offer, thinking that he had sponsorship locked up from Maxwell House coffee.[28] Johnson actually had the sponsorship locked up for his second team, so Kulwicki began the season sponsorless, paying expenses out of his own pocket.[28]
First of all, Did Johnson in fact have the Maxwell House sponsorship, thereby keeping Kulwicki from getting sponsorship? I assume so, but it could probably be more clear. Also, is it necessary to have three consecutive footnotes in three consecutive sentences? Besides that, the footnoted link does not work.
Done correct - Johnson received the Maxwell House sponsorship, keeping Kulwicki from having their sponsorship, and causing Kulwicki to start the season with no sponsor. reworded to "secured" and dropped citations until ended of section. "Johnson was expanding his operation to a two car team and offered Kulwicki a ride in the second car. Kulwicki turned down Johnson's $1,000,000 offer, thinking that he had secured a sponsorship dealed with Maxwell House coffee. Johnson ended up securing the sponsorship for his second team, so Kulwicki began the season sponsorless, paying expenses out of his own pocket." The link to the reference works for me!
Regarding the sentence, Kulwicki was deeply troubled after he was involved in the fatal crash of Larry Detjens at Wisconsin International Raceway on August 1, 1981.[20] It seems that his involvement in the death of a fellow racer is a big thing and should come first. Follow it up with saying that he was troubled by it. In fact, the death did come first, chronologically speaking. Can you include more information on the accident? From what I recall, it was a big part of his early history, and it did bother him a lot throughout his life.
- Reworded. That content is a concern of mine. I looked long and hard to find additional references to expand that information but I can't find anything. His movie references the incident and the actor shows that Kulwicki was very upset. I'm sure that Kulwicki was deeply influenced by his role in the death. I've heard unsourced rumors that Kulwicki was shunned by local racers and "forced" to go to regional touring series because he made enemies. Detjens' nephews are Scott Wimmer and Chris Wimmer, and I still couldn't find information through their national exposure.
I think most of Salmar's comments are on the money, though I didn't pick up on many of them myself. Here are some suggestions... How about, "The increased stiffness allowed the car to handle better in the turns"? How about, "Kulwicki finished fifteenth in the Winston Cup points for the season, with nine Top 10 finishes, eleven DNFs, and an average finish of 18.2 in 29 events. How about "Kulwicki led during 41 laps and won by 18.5 seconds." Or "for 41 laps" if they were consecutive. Done Done (Love it!) Done changed to "during"
-Freekee (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Eventually, I would like to see a whole paragraph about the Detjens incident. How did the accident happen? Oh, and the link works for me now too. Maybe the site was just down that day. -Freekee (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
This article seems quite comprehensive and includes an impressive number of references. The lead is stronger than it was even a few days ago, offering a solid overview of Kulwicki's accomplishments and personal qualities. (There is a close relationship between the two, given that Kulwicki's independent streak inspired many--if not most--of his professional decisions.) References to the fact that Kulwicki grew up in a Polish-American neighborhood (in a town that also has a large Polish-American population) will help readers to understand why his ethnicity became a big part of his public image. I agree with you that the subject's social life wouldn't yield much for a "Personal life" section. You might want to mention, however, that Kulwicki's devotion to his work left little room for personal relationships. Readers will probably guess that he was a bachelor (there is no reference to a wife), but it might be helpful if his unmarried status were mentioned somewhere in the article.
Most of my edits focused on minor style and punctuation issues. I placed commas before several coordinating conjunctions and added hyphens where they seemed to be appropriate. The placement of commas after prepositional phrases is becoming less common, of course, and I don't think it's considered necessary unless the PP includes five or more words. For the sake of consistency, however, I added commas to PPs without them. Toward the end of the piece, I noticed that a couple of numbers (10 or higher) were written out rather than represented with Arabic numerals. These issues were so minor that I made the edits myself. If you disagree with any changes, please feel free to revert them.
Another minor concern had to do with the formatting of references. A number of newspaper and periodical titles appeared without italics.
Overall, this is a tight, well-researched, and engaging article. I wish I had more to offer in terms of constructive criticism. In my view, it's ready for promotion. I hope this helps! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the article. Having few comments is a good thing! Your thought about stating that he was a bachelor is important and it needs to added. I'd like to use "Kulwicki's devotion to his work left little room for personal relationships" if I can find a source because that's a lot like a scene in his biographical movie. Royalbroil 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Inline citations 26 and 27 lend support to your description of Kulwicki as a "loner." If you follow up a sourced statement about his social life with a reference to the fact that he was unmarried, the reader will probably draw a connection between Kulwicki's retiring personality and his bachelor status. Meanwhile, you can avoid drawing that connection yourself, which (in the absence of a citation) would be OR. This might be a way to handle the situation without having to seek out another reference. I'll look over the article again today, to see if anything else catches my eye. Thanks, again, for your recommendations on Jack Warner, which I've started to move on. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I found a quote from his publicist about his "hard to know" personality, and I added that he remained a bachelor thoughtout his life (bachelor should be uncontroversial although I found it in the Polish American HoF website). Royalbroil 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks good! I slightly revised this statement so that the comment from Kulwicki's publicist reads as a partial quote. Please don't hesitate to revert any changes you have concerns about. The Jack Warner article definitely benefited from your feedback. If I have any questions, I'll let you know. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I found a quote from his publicist about his "hard to know" personality, and I added that he remained a bachelor thoughtout his life (bachelor should be uncontroversial although I found it in the Polish American HoF website). Royalbroil 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Inline citations 26 and 27 lend support to your description of Kulwicki as a "loner." If you follow up a sourced statement about his social life with a reference to the fact that he was unmarried, the reader will probably draw a connection between Kulwicki's retiring personality and his bachelor status. Meanwhile, you can avoid drawing that connection yourself, which (in the absence of a citation) would be OR. This might be a way to handle the situation without having to seek out another reference. I'll look over the article again today, to see if anything else catches my eye. Thanks, again, for your recommendations on Jack Warner, which I've started to move on. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of quick comments to help get things as good as possible before the GA review--the quotation marks need to be fixed around his nickname in the lead. References should also be in the proper order when several are given for the same fact (eg. rather than [23][32][9][17], it should be [9][17][23][32]). This is a problem in at least a couple of places in the article. Best wishes for the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done multiple references were removed except where it took several references to cite a controversial fact. They were ordered by the order that the facts appeared in the sentence, which I feel should be the proper order. I changed them to be in numerical order based on the current reference order. Royalbroil 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of quick comments to help get things as good as possible before the GA review--the quotation marks need to be fixed around his nickname in the lead. References should also be in the proper order when several are given for the same fact (eg. rather than [23][32][9][17], it should be [9][17][23][32]). This is a problem in at least a couple of places in the article. Best wishes for the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
GA nom comments by Tlayden
Another interesting person I have not heard of, but it was a fairly good read. I have a few issues with this article though, mostly challenging it to improve to the best of its capabilities and GA status.
- Photo of him would enhance article at top of page
- Under awards there are some issues with capitalization and correct wording
- His trophy pictures contain other photographs in the background. These photographs probably have copyright laws and should be blurred out or removed to follow the copyright laws of the U.S.
- NASCAR Nationwide Series Statistics are insufficient and unnecessary for article
Overall interesting to read, although there may be too much unnecessary information for him that is crammed in.
--Tlayden (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- A photo is definitely wanted. As I indicated above, I am pursuiting through my connections. I won't touch any fair use images because I firmly believe that they will all eventually be removed. I hate wasting effort.
- All of the halls of fame are capitalized exactly how the source articles are capitalized. I removed a poorly formed "and".
- Good point about the background images. It was impossible to take or crop the photo without including them. I can blur them out.
- Nationwide Series statistics are required in the infobox, it would be incomplete without them. All NASCAR drivers have them without exception. There needs to be some mention of them in the main body. It is an almost necessary stepping stone series and it is extremely important for a driver to have success there before he gets moved up to the premiere series.
- Could you give me an example of something unnecessary that should be removed? Royalbroil 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I blurred out the photographs in the background on the images. I added a request for a free image. There has to be a free use image of him out there and I'm in a decent position to find one.
- I toned down the Busch Series statistics a bit. It did read like a list of his Busch Series results. The Daytona Busch Series race is important because it's considered the top event in that series. The top drivers in the Cup Series always crash that particular race (see Buschwhacker), so a Top 20 finish by a regular in the lower series is considered to be a good showing. A 16th place finish by a new one-time (one-off) part-time driver is even more impressive. Royalbroil 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed with your work Royalbroil! You have shown a commitment to improve this article. I agree that a photo of Kulwicki would add to the article, but I see how it may be tough to get one, espically one the apply to the strict copyright laws. Upon further review of the article I really see no information that is unnecessary. I am a huge auto racing fan now, but I have to admit know little about the past of auto racing and people like him. In the near future I would love to contribute to the auto racing and NASCAR projects on Wikipedia!
I would personally give this article GA status after further review and the changes made to it.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- With exception of actual picture of him.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
--Tlayden (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Royalbroil has asked that I review the article and I will not deny that request. As pointed out by User:Tlayden, the general fixes have been addressed, therefore I will look at the article and see if there are any other things needed to be changed. Zenlax T C S 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone through the article and it reads well. Therefore, I will go on and pass the article, as nothing has come up that's been troubling to read. Congratulations on everyone's hard work with the article reaching Good article criteria. Zenlax T C S 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about Alan Kulwicki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alan Kulwicki/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
| == Comments From Leo1410 ==
Thanks for the comments on Kechewaishke. As a member of the distinguished club of Polish-Wisconsinites, I thought it proper to give this article a read. Here is what I have to offer: 1. This article has the information and references to be a FA somewhere down the road. The issues I see are with flow and clarity. 2. Racing jargon is not a problem. I know a little about racing, but not a lot, and I thought the wikilinks and explanations were more than sufficient when the language got difficult. 3. Kulwicki is notable for 3 different reasons: Personal Life (upbringing, personality, tragic death, etc.), Innovations in racing (owner/driver, educated northerner, knowledge of science behind racing, Polish Victory Lap, etc.), and NASCAR career (top-50 drivers, 1992 Championship, etc.) Suggestions to improve flow and clarity 1. Prose is clunky especially in the lead:
2. Organize more by theme
3. Images
Hope this helps and isn't overly critical. This is a very good article and has potential to be one of the best. Go Pack! Leo1410 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Adjusted my preferences, and the article looks worlds better, so it looks like I wasted a fair amount of words. Leo1410 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
== Alan Kulwicki Review by Johncoracing48 == Alan Kulwicki is a fantastic article that is clearly Featured Article material.
1. Great coverage on Kulwicki's entire life 2. Is well written 3. Citations are substantial and easy to follow 4. Offers additional information such as the documentary of Kulwicki's life 5. Has very few typos 6. Features numerous photos that complement the article Some things I think need work: 1.The list of owner/drivers at the end of the Legacy section needs work. Most of it is fine, but too much information is present about Tony Stewart that is unrelated to Alan. In my opinion, only his name should be mentioned simiarly to the way Michael Waltrip's is. The part about Robby Gordon citing Alan as the inspiration for his #7 team is fine. 2. ... I was going to write another con about this article, but I can't find one. The article is just fantastic! Closing This article is, hands down, the best article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It should be a Featured Article. In fact, I've read some Featured Articles that aren't even close to the quality in which this article is made of.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's just it. I found nothing wrong with it. It is hands down the best article I've ever read on Wikipedia. In my opinion, it needs no more fixing except for maybe three typos that I found. I'm going to go back through and fix them. Are they saying this isn't Featured Article material? I think it's the epitome of Featured Article material.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand. When you try to renominate it, keep me posted and feel free to ask me if you need any help. By the way, I went back through the article (I still found it as flawless as before) and I fixed both typos I found in the article.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC) ==Comments from BaronLarf== Great article. But in the interests of improvement, I'm going to stick to criticism. If you'd like me to jump in and edit some of the references myself, I'd be happy to. References If possible, I would suggest that the references be accessible when re-nominated.
Article
Great work, and good luck! Cheers, --BaronLarf 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
Last edited at 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)