Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Bank of America 500/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2017 [1].

2006 Bank of America 500

edit
Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2006 Bank of America 500, a NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race held in Concord, North Carolina at Lowe's Motor Speedway on October 14, 2006. It was the 31st race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the midway point in the season-ending Chase for the Nextel Cup. It was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne, his sixth victory of the season. This is the third time the article has been nominated at FAC; the previous two were failed because of a lack of interest. Since then, I have made adjustments to the prose to make it more understandable and clearer to read. I will be going for the Four Award. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • There are inconsistencies in the ways some references are formatted. For instance, in ref 1 you give "work" (Jaysticks) and "publisher" (ESPN), which is fine. But in ref 6 you only give the work, no publisher. In ref 11 you give the work and a location, no publisher. In ref 14, ESPN is given as the work. These are examples – there are similar cases elsewhere in the list. None of these is an error as such, but you need to be consistent in how the information is presented.
  • Another oddity is in your use of locations. Why is "Charlotte, North Carolina" given as the location of the Houston Chronicle (ref 18) and The Spokesman-Review (38)? And why is "Concord, North Carolina" given as the location of the Sporting News (ref 22), USA Today (28), the Amarillo Globe-News (31), the Motor Racing Network (32), the New York Times (!) (33) and NASCAR (36)? These locations seem to bear no relation to the publications or the publishers.
  • Ref 2: The publisher is given as USA Today Media Sports Group, but the site says "Racing-reference.info is part of the NASCAR Digital Media Network."

Other than these issues, sources are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your comments. I have made the necessary changes. MWright96 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on the Ref 2 issue: R-R was previously part of the USA Today Sports Media Group. I'm not sure when they moved under NASCAR's media umbrella - it was probably within the last two years - but there's good odds at the time that reference was originally placed in the article, they were USA Today-affiliated. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit

I'm hoping to look over this tonight. ceranthor 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was held on October 14, 2006, before a crowd of 175,000 in Concord, North Carolina, at Lowe's Motor Speedway, one of ten intermediate tracks to hold NASCAR races." - think this sentence could be split into two
  • "Riggs regained the lap twelve laps later, " - Think you mean lead, but unclear
  • "until he was passed by Dale Earnhardt Jr. who led the next 31 laps." - should probably be a "for" after led
  • "The victory was Kahne's sixth of the season, and the seventh of his career." - was it early in his career, then? A very brief bit of background/clarification would be nice, just at the end of the sentence
  • "Three practice sessions were held before the Sunday race - one each on Thursday, Friday and, Saturday." - why the hyphen?
  • Is there any way to break up the "race" section? It's incredibly long and dense, which makes it hard to read all at once

Initial comments only. This looks to be in good shape, prose-wise. ceranthor 21:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Kahne appeared in victory lane in front of the crowd of 170,000 to celebrate his sixth win of the season[2] earning him $305,889" - which earned him
  • "Shortly after leaving his car, Martin felt the championship was an achievement that he was unable to secure: "They tell me a lot of people are having trouble anyway, but we didn't need to throw that away,"[34]" - meant to be a period at the end?

Otherwise, I think the prose looks good. I'll read through once more after these are fixed. ceranthor 04:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the prose. ceranthor 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Usernameunique

edit

The Bushranger, looks good if slightly jargon-y, some mostly minor prose points (and a few questions) are below. Feel free to disregard stylistic points you disagree with.

@Usernameunique:, I think you meant to ping @MWright96: who is the nominator. . I can answer one question right away though, there are multiple tracks at Charlotte/Lowes; there's a 0.25-mile (0.40 km) track that's located "in" the frontstretch area, on the top in this image, as well as "roval" course that runs into the infield between the start-finish line and Turn One (also visible there on the left side of the image). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger, thanks for the correction/answer. Striking that from the above points. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique Made all of the changes you have suggested above, except for the one point concerning the wording of the time zone of which I have commented why it should remain spelt out and not in acronyms. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick turnaround MWright96, adding my support. Two minor points from above still remain, but implement (or not) at your own discretion. First, you still use the word "wiliness" (i.e., craftiness) when I believe you mean "willingness." The second is the point about putting the list of racetracks in a footnote. What I was suggesting was a separate notes section such as this one, which keeps the information but doesn't clutter up the text. That's definitely a point of personal preference, though, so no need to do that unless you want to. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique Of the two changes you have suggested, I have implemented the one concerning the misspelt word in the first sub-section. Many thanks for the support. MWright96 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

edit

Reading through right now—just letting you know it's in process! --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay but I came down with a bad cold and haven't had much of an urge to sit at the computer. Promise I'll be back within 1-2 days to post a review! --Laser brain (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from Bcschneider53 I'll also note that the user who uploaded the Earnhardt image (which has been deemed not okay) is the same person who uploaded the "fishy" Riggs image (KaseyKahneFan). The problem is that this is the only image of Riggs on Wikipedia (though there is an image of his car from the season before). Unless someone can find a replacement via Flickr or something, we may have to do without an image of the polesitter this time. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KaseyKahneFan uploaded the cropped Earnhardt image but not the original. That editor is still active on Commons and I'm assuming good faith (they probably found the image on the National Guard web site and didn't read carefully). As far as the Riggs image, I'm not actually sure what the community standards are on Commons for removing images that may be copyvios but without evidence. That particular user hasn't been active in 10 years so it's unlikely they can shed any light on the situation. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Ah, ok. Good catch. Also (and this is quite late, but), welcome back! Glad to see you around again. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while there are some pictures of Scott on Flickr Commons, they're either BY-ND or BY-NC-ND licensed... except this one which just, well, no. We want a picture of Scott Riggs, not The Blur. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just now seen this. The copyvio image of Earnhardt has been replaced with one from 2012. MWright96 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves the Riggs image in question -- perhaps further opinion from say Nikkimaria or Jo-Jo Eumerus? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky, tough to prove anything either way. Given this, this, and this I'd be inclined to say it probably isn't free, but I haven't found an exact match predating the upload. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are professional photographers who upload to Wikimedia, or who license their images which then get uploaded to Wikimedia. In this case the lack of EXIF and the file description imply that the file was altered before upload, before Nikkimaria's third image. My sense is that we don't have enough information to make a clear cut decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update, due to the uncertainty concerning the Riggs picture, I have uploaded a freely licensed picture of him from Flickr. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MWright96, I don't think it should hold up the review, but it can't hurt to drop a message under this flickr photo and see if they'd be willing to license it appropriately for Wikipedia. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique Don't think that the image is suitable on the basis and I believe the picture that I posted is more than suitable. MWright96 (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2006_Bank_of_America_500/archive3&oldid=1086354069"