Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daytona USA/archive1

< 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2023 [1].

Daytona USA

edit
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are if you've ever been to an arcade or a bowling alley, or anywhere that has arcade games, you've seen one of these machines. Daytona USA is iconic and anecdotally considered one of the best-selling and greatest arcade games of all time, so much so that it's still reasonably common to see around today. Its success was a good way to kick off the run of what was arguably Sega's most successful arcade system board, the Model 2 — a board so advanced for its time that its graphics were built by US military contractor GE Aerospace, which later became part of Lockheed Martin.

It's been three years since I last brought an article to FAC. This has been an article I've worked on and off since about 2019, and it's taken me waiting to find sources to flesh out what I felt was missing to ensure this article was covered in depth and could be considered complete. I'm taking a deep breath and a leap of faith on this one as I've only written one FAC on an actual video game and that was one that had been canceled, so this feels like new ground to me. But, it feels as ready as I can possibly make it. I thank all reviewers in advance for their feedback. Red Phoenix talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Daytona_USA_arcade_flyer.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more expansive FUR
  • File:Daytona_USA_screenshot.png needs a more expansive FUR
  • File:Daytona_Twin.jpg: what's the status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: The image is uploaded as CC-BY-SA 4.0, though if you're inquiring whether or not it truly is, I found it difficult to determine whether an arcade cabinet displaying a game running on it could be copyrighted or not. The best I could figure out is that while the game displayed would likely fall under copyright, the cabinet itself would not (though it contains trademarks). The best I could find on the subject was here - the game would be a work of authorship, but its method of operation is not protected by copyright, and the arcade cabinet would be the game's method of operation. If the screen in the picture is the issue, I can pull up File:Two-seater IMG 0174 (19411605993).jpg, crop it down to remove excess, and utilize it, as it does not have a lit screen. Please do let me know your thoughts. Red Phoenix talk 01:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • "Inspired by the popularity of the NASCAR motor racing series in the US, players ...": needs rephrasing; as written the first clause modifies "players".
  • The use of "release" as an intransitive verb ("The first game released on ...") is a fairly recent usage and I don't think has general acceptance yet, though I gather it's common in video game journalism. I would suggest making it transitive throughout.
    • It is quite common in video game journalism, yes. I'd like to push back on this a bit in that when I checked over Wikipedia:Featured articles#Video gaming, every article I looked at had this same usage of "released" or "was released" -- I would therefore make the case that it has been accepted as language meeting the FA standards. If you still disagree, I would either ask for a third opinion or how you might go about rephrasing these uses. Red Phoenix talk 01:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sympathetic to the idea of subject-specific language; I write articles on magazines and occasionally someone wil change wording that is standard in the industry but not common outside it. But "was released" is uncontroversial -- that's just the passive form of the transitive verb; other than the common dislike of passive voice, I don't think anyone could object to that. You've changed the only instance that I thought was a problem ("The first game released on the Sega Model 2" -> It was the first game to be released on the Sega Model 2") so I've struck this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first game released on the Sega Model 2 arcade system board, a prototype debuted at Tokyo's Amusement Machine Show in August 1993 and was location tested in Japan the same month, before the complete game released in March 1994." This is a bit confusing because it's out of chronological order. Can we avoid saying the game (was) released both at the start and the end of the sentence? I think there's a distinction being made between the two releases -- one refers to the arcade hardware, the other to the "complete game", but the distinction isn't very clear.
    • Actually, I went ahead and cleared out the whole prototype bit because I don't think it's necessary for the lead. If I remember right, this may have been a remnant from an editor pushing to state the game came out in 1993 on the basis of the prototype, and that editor has been subsequently blocked as a sock. That there was a prototype I think is appropriate for the body but not necessarily for the lead.
  • "after a meeting of the heads of Sega's regional offices for a game to debut the Model 2 hardware": I think this would be better with a verb instead of just "for"; e.g. "a meeting [...] to decide on a game".
    • Rephrased, using your wording.
  • Do the sources say why Namco's Ridge Racer was in Sega's sights? Was it the dominant racing game of the time?
  • "The game's camera system presents four different view perspectives from which the game can be played, similar to Virtua Racing, and also includes the ability to view behind the car." I think technically this should be "similarly to", but that feels a bit clumsy. How about "As in Virtua Racing, the game's camera system presents four different view perspectives from which the game can be played, and also includes the ability to view behind the car."
    • Used your wording.
  • "The arcade version offers multiplayer and up to eight players can compete depending on the number of cabinets linked together." Suggest "The arcade version allows up to eight players to compete with each other, depending on the number of cabinets linked together".
    • Used your wording.
  • Possibly not an issue for this article, but you mention "deluxe cabinets"; I had a look in the article on the Model 2 and it doesn't mention such a thing. Were these Model 2 cabinets or a later cabinet?
    • Let me clarify some confusion here for you: the Model 2 is an arcade system board, not an arcade cabinet. Think of the arcade system board as the computer, and it's the most important part of the arcade cabinet, which also includes the game's controls, screen, decoration, seats (if applicable, but especially in racing games), etc. So certain games will have different types of cabinets such as uprights, sit-downs, or deluxe cabinets, but that's unique to each game and not to each arcade system board. Red Phoenix talk 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks for the clarification. I had another look at the paragraph and I don't think any change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The person given direct responsibility for the project was AM2 director Toshihiro Nagoshi,[1] with himself and Suzuki serving as producers." Suggest "AM2 director Toshihiro Nagoshi was given direct responsibility for the project, with Nagoshi and Suzuki serving as producers."
    • Used your wording.
  • "Nagoshi was aware of the number of racing arcade games already on the market and decided he wanted to take his game in a different direction." It's not the number, surely? Presumably the intended meaning is that he was familiar with the contents, or the approach taken, or the design of, the many games on the market.
    • Removed "number" - I think the point of emphasis in the source was that there were many racing video games out there in 1993, but I don't think any meaning is lost removing it.
  • "and recalled how it was a new experience for him": suggest "and later recalled that it was a new experience for him".
    • Used your wording.
  • "Nagoshi's team selected different ways to research for the project." I don't have access to the source, but I would guess that the three sentences that follow this are examples of these different approaches. I think it would be more concise (and would avoid implying that these three are the entire team) to cut this sentence and instead make the point in the transition between the sentences. For example, "As research for the project, Nagoshi read books and watched videos on NASCAR, although he found it difficult to convey the emotions of the sport to his staff in Japan. In contrast, game planner Makoto Osaki said he purchased a sports car and watched the NASCAR film Days of Thunder more than 100 times. Programmer Daichi Katagiri was an avid player of arcade racing games at the time and leaned on that experience."
    • You are correct in that was what the source was doing. Used your wording, minus "In contrast" as I don't really feel like it's a contradiction as much as it is just a different approach.
  • "Suzuki also reached out to Sega designer Jeffery Buchanan, who suggested placing interesting features in various locations. Some of these features included a dinosaur fossil and a clipper." Suggest "Suzuki also reached out to Sega designer Jeffery Buchanan, who suggested placing interesting features, such as a dinosaur fossil and a clipper ship, at various locations within the game."
    • Used your wording.
  • "Mitsuyoshi said this was the only way to include vocals, due to technical limitations of the Model 2." Do we need to attribute this to Mitsuyoshi inline? That implies others might not agree; is there any reason to doubt him?
    • Removed attribution to Mitsubishi on this line specifically.
  • Can we say how the hidden track "Pounding Pavement" was accessed?
    • Done, but I'll be honest, my reservation about explaining this was avoiding WP:GAMECRUFT. I'll let you decide if the addition is appropriate or not.
      I wouldn't argue too much if someone else wanted to remove it, but given that you've mentioned the fact that the track was hidden, I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is location testing? Putting one or two machines in an arcade and monitoring them?
    • Explained this out a bit; more like a small, highly limited release to see how it did in sales before doing a full launch.
  • "It was a Western launch game for Saturn": what does this mean?
  • "In Japan, two separate Windows releases were done in September and December 1996, with the first released version supporting different graphics cards such as Leadtek's WinFast GD400." Seems an odd way to say this -- normally one says the second instance of something is different to the first, not the other way round. Does "different" here mean different to the second version, or something else?
  • Which Windows version was released in Europe and the US?
    • Difficult to say whether or not it even was one of the versions released in Japan, as that doesn't exist in any source. It's worth noting the game is the same content-wise, so it's only a matter of technical requirements, and to dig through all of that to determine based on the requirements would be WP:OR. As such, I think it's fine to just call it the "Windows version".
      That's fair, but how about making it "A Windows version" rather than "The Windows version"? The reason I asked was because "The" made me think we were being specific, and since two Windows versions had been listed it was ambiguous, but since as you say it could have been a third version, using "A Windows version" would avoid the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Done. Red Phoenix talk 01:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to no longer having the rights": suggest "as Sega no longer owned the rights", or "as Sega's license had expired".
    • Used your wording.
  • "In a 2002 report, Sega said it was one of the most successful arcade games of all time." You might consider cutting this -- as it's sourced to Sega it's not particularly valuable, and there are plenty of other sources given that say the same thing so we don't need to hear Sega agreeing.
    • I'm okay cutting this if needed, but let me justify it a bit: everyone else is going off of anecdotal evidence and that it's said it's that successful. Although we don't have numbers, surely Sega would know absolutely how many they sold and how that compares in the industry? If you don't agree, that's fine; it's a cut I would be okay with.
      I see your point. Does the source have additional information about why Sega said this -- e.g. did they say something like "It's one of the top X games we've ever made, based on units sold"? They're a reliable source for the relative popularity of their own games, and since they're a major player in the industry that implies a game that's successful in the industry. If there's no additional context like that, then on balance I think I'd cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer appears to be no, so removed. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of instances of A said B in the reception section. For example, the second paragraph of the "Arcade" subsection has four sources cited, one after the other, starting with Rik Skews. Can we combine some of these sentences so that they collect similar statements together? For example, almost everyone quoted in this paragraph praised the graphics; could we make a statement about the reception of the graphics, instead of a series of indirect and direct quotes that mention them? There's a little bit of the same problem further down the section.
    • I took a shot at reworking the paragraphs in this section; let me know what you think. This is an area I struggle with, so I'm open to feedback.
  • I don't think you have to name every single source inline, either; that's what citations are for. If a reviewer has particular cachet, you might want to name them inline, but does the reader care that it was Skews and Straus and LaMancha writing for those publications? Or even which publications the opinions you cite appeared in?
    • Does the reader care? No. But as I've always understood it one should identify the writer if the publication does, because it's their words and opinions and not actually that of the publication - and if a publication doesn't list a writer, then it's more of the publication's voice. That being said, your last line confuses me a bit in that how would you attribute in a paragraph who said what?
      I'm supporting below, since I don't think this is a key point, and because I think there may even be a guideline somewhere that says that one should attribute inline. Also I understand that when you use a quote, it's often better to attribute inline. But I think the reader is usually going to care that, for example, the graphics were praised and the soundtrack was not, or vice versa, but not that publications X, Y and Z praised the graphics and writers A, B, and C disliked the soundtrack, so sometimes it makes sense to use quotes without attribution. For example, you could do this with part of the "Arcade" second paragraph: "It was very well received on its North American debut at ACME 1994, with some reviewers considering it the game of the show, though one commented on the expensive cabinet price. The gameplay, sound, damage physics, and "state-of-the-art" graphics were praised, and Daytona USA was described as the best arcade game one reviewer had played in years, while another reviewer asserted that "the stakes in the arcade wars have been raised again". I'm not suggesting you make this change, just that this seems easier to read to me, and doesn't lose any information, since with citations in the right place the reader can find Rik Skews' name if they want it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar to the arcade version, the Saturn version was compared to Ridge Racer's PlayStation conversion." I'm not sure what the first clause is intended to convey -- that the game was similar?
    • It was intended to connect to the arcade section where the arcade game was compared to Ridge Racer. Rephrased.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the reception section I have either addressed or left feedback to each comment. I'll work on reception in the next couple of days and get back with you. Red Phoenix talk 03:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes and a couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie All addressed and ready for a second pass, if this doesn't get archived first. Red Phoenix talk 02:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The remaining unstruck comment doesn't affect my support; I think this article complies with the accepted approach to attributing reviews. Other than that this seems to me a well-researched and well-written account. Red Phoenix, if this does get archived, let me know when you re-nominate so I can comment/support again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ProtoDrake

edit
  • Support: This seems a perfectly sound article to be an FA. If the article still gets closed due to lack of activity, I'll be okay to give a fresh support at a second nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must've been gone from here too long; could've sworn six weeks was about the standard to let a FAC run. In any regard, I'm unfortunately not surprised as even among video game editors, arcade games are a niche in part because it's a format of gaming that's been dying a slow death since the 2000s. Red Phoenix talk 02:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I’ve left a request for more feedback at WT:VG to hopefully bring additional reviewers within the next few days. Red Phoenix talk 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RP, a very rough and ready rule of thumb is that if a nomination has not gained two general supports within three weeks, or at least shown signs of shortly getting there, then the coordinators will be watching it and it is unlikely to make it to four weeks unless the situation improves. The divide for "Older articles" is set at three weeks to help everyone keep an eye on this. Sometimes simply having a warning like this posted will prompt reviewers to come forward, or those who have commented to expedite their support/oppose decision making. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire

edit

Overall, looks good to me. Not really my area of expertise, but I'll give it a shot.

  • Is mentioning "realism" really lede-worthy? Assuming this is referring to the GamePro review, it's one line of a very short and insubstantial review that mentions the word "realism", yes, but as part of a sentence that says "Daytona takes an actiony game and a realish game and makes a combination that's great!" That's not 100% the same thing as praising realism. This is a game where (assuming I'm not confusing it with a different sit-down arcade game) you can drive around the track backwards and do head-on collisions with the other racers and be totally 100% fine. If a lot of other reviews other than GamePro brought it up, maybe, but otherwise, I'd rephrase it.
    • I'll strike - there are more reviews that do discuss realism, but I wouldn't say it's a significant enough quantity - especially in comparison to its primary competition, Ridge Racer. Changed to "gameplay", which does have stronger feedback. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, was using satellite photography & photographs really lede-worthy as well? This is totally optional, I know there are differences of opinion here. But this just doesn't seem that important. Satellite photography wasn't restricted to super-spies in the 1990s, it was reasonably accessible - "the developers checked Google Maps to get a sense of the terrain" for a 2023 game wouldn't be that interesting, so I don't see why the 1992-94 equivalent would be so much more interesting.
    • Reworded - it was more or less a reasonable attempt to discuss development a little more in the lead; the new wording doesn't fully drop the concept but reduces the focus a bit. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the first lap of each race measures the skill of the player and adjust the difficulty of opponents accordingly" - Shouldn't this be "adjusts" to match?
  • "Visually, the game runs at 60 frames per second " - I don't have access to the source, but just to verify, the source is attributing the "smooth appearance" at least partially to the 60fps? Because that's a bit surprising to me, I'd think that older graphics wouldn't be particularly improved by 30fps vs. 60fps. It's a pretty subtle difference even with post-2010 graphics IMO, but if the source does say this, it's fine.
  • "For the Saturn version, the vocals and instruments were rerecorded with real instruments" - is this really in the Gamasutra / GameDev cite? That interview talks about the original work and the 15th anniversary edition, but I'm not seeing a lot about the Saturn version in that source. Maybe ref order got swapped around? Or am I just missing it? (Also, on behalf of music majors into electronic music, I dunno about referring to electronica as "false" instruments... but the phrasing in the source should be honored, whatever that source is.)
  • Is there a better way to phrase "The Xbox 360 version was made compatible with Xbox One on March 21, 2017"? That sounds like the day that Sega engineers got it to boot, or fixed the last bug, when it really means "was released to the public in a buyable state." While on that note, I don't see a date in the given reference. The article was from March 21, sure (or possibly just updated on that date?), but it just says that it's coming to the XBox One. Is there a better reference out there? If not, I'd say that just saying "2017" is about the most that can be taken from the article (assuming it really was published in March 2017).
    • The title of the article said it was happening "today". That being said, it does sound awkward and it's not truly a release date since it is just compatibility with another system of the same release, so removed and simply noted it was made compatible. Red Phoenix talk 01:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Mike Christie brought it up, I'll just echo my endorsement of calling out the authors directly to properly attribute opinions that the article currently does. No, most readers won't care, but it's the accurate and proper thing to do, so no changes needed here.
  • The Air Hendrix review appears cut off - it ends on a semicolon now. Checking the history, I see it didn't always - will leave it up to the nominator whether to replace with a period or to restore the older sentence structure.
  • Is there possibly a better quote to use from the Eurogamer Martin Robinson review that called it "a fitting epitaph to the genre?" Because speaking from 2023 rather than 2011, this is totally bananas, and might mislead casual readers into thinking that racing games are dead. Mario Kart 8 has sold 53 million units and routinely was a top 10 seller even in years after its release.
    • Done - I'm pretty sure Robinson was referring to arcade racers, not "racing games". That being said, there was a better quote about how the 360/PS3 version is a tribute to the original, so I tucked that in instead. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The star {{rating}} template in video game reviews has been deprecated per Template:Video_game_reviews#Guidelines. I'd suggest replacing without a good reason to prefer it here.
  • While on that note... the number of reviews included in the template might be a tad excessive? This may be a larger topic than just this article, but the question of comprehensiveness vs. tl;dr has come up before. The template documentation technically says "Only include reviews if they are cited within the text" but this advice is frequently ignored, and sometimes for good reason (e.g. including Famitsu is good for an international perspective, even if not directly discussed). That said, there are a few reviews that might be better shuffled off to a talk page "holding pen" just in the name of shortening the template, e.g. Game Informer / GameFan / GamesMaster don't appear to be used outside it.
    • I trimmed out AllGame as it's more noteworthy for its database than its reviews. On the rest - yes, international perspective is part of it (i.e. Gamest in Japan, Player One in France, Sega Magazin in Germany), and some of it is scores for the Arcade version, as not all video game magazines during that time (or now, for that matter), scored arcade video games even if they'd cover it. I don't see harm in it personally, but do let me know if you want me to strike more reviews from the box. Red Phoenix talk 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize that the rest of the world doesn't exactly match the Wikipedia article's "definition" of best games, but I'd use some caution with the more narrowly tailored lists as examples of "best games of all time." Best computer games, sure, whatever, but "best coin-operated games" and "best arcade games" feel like they might be better served as a new sentence. Additionally, I'm not sure how much hype a mention in the Guinness Book of World Records Gamer Edition is. I suppose it probably sold better than many "serious" gaming books, but being a heavily young kid based target market kind of reduces the potency of the endorsement.
    • Done - including striking the Guinness Book.

SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: Thank you for your feedback. I've acted upon it and responses are above; comments should be resolved unless you have more for me. Red Phoenix talk 02:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. On the Eurogamer article, fair point that the title says "today", but it still says "updated March 17, 2017" (rather than "published"). Checking the Wayback Machine, I don't see it on a March 18 snapshot of Eurogamer's front page, so either it was some quiet update to an old story, or it wasn't significant enough to hit the main page? But that seems doubtful, game magazines aren't so flush with content they can afford not to highlight their latest articles. I suppose you could email Eurogamer or the article's author for information on when it went up if you wanted to nail down the date more precisely, but I doubt people are THAT interested in the date on the citation.
    • TOTALLY OPTIONAL: This isn't a huge deal, but it was a little surprising to land on French / German Wikipedia for some of the reviewer links in the reviews table on the magazine you mentioned. If you have time to kill at some later point, maybe translate the articles over to English Wikipedia so they can be normal blue links? Alternatively, you could use {{ill}} so that it's less surprising, although maybe it would be distracting in a table. This is up to you, avoiding red links isn't a FA criterion, but might be a nice short project.
    • Support. SnowFire (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Reviewing [this version], spot-check only upon request. I don't know most sources and am assuming that stuff mentioned as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources can be relied on - are Jalopnik, Game Machine, Games World, RePlay reliable sources? Does Edge not have bylines? I note that many sources don't have any author information, is this normal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, and thanks for reviewing. To answer your questions:
  • Jalopnik is published by G/O Media, the same publisher as reliable source Kotaku except Jalopnik is focused on car topics. This article was published before the July concerns over AI-written content at G/O and should be reliable, but if you disagree, this is all also covered in the Horowitz book used extensively as a source in this encyclopedia article. I’ve doubled the cite as insurance.
  • Game Machine is a Japanese arcade industry publication for arcade operators in Japan, published in magazine format until 2002, see here for a translation on the Japanese Wikipedia article.
  • Games World is published by Paragon Publishing, which published a number of video game magazines. I updated the links to link to Paragon, since Games World doesn’t reflect the magazine itself, but the linked TV show was the inspiration for the magazine.
  • RePlay, along with Play Meter, are/were the two foremost arcade industry publications in the United States for arcade operators. At some point I may have to write the article on RePlay.
  • On author information… yeah, in older video game magazines it’s shockingly common that articles in the magazines didn’t credit who wrote what, and that includes reviews. Edge is perhaps the worst offender, but Computer and Video Games isn’t much better. Others certainly did do a better job. I was very diligent to ensure that every time an author was listed that they were credited and only excluded that when one was not. I also do not believe a credit to “Staff” is warranted, as that’s pretty much the same assumption as when an article is uncredited to a person.
Red Phoenix talk 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your review! Red Phoenix talk 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This has been open for two months and we finally have completed source and image reviews to go along with three supports. Anything else needed for this article’s candidacy to be completed? Red Phoenix talk 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick read-through and see if anything stands out to me. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 5 August 2023 (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/Daytona_USA/archive1&oldid=1169002056"