Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Daytona International Speedway/1

Daytona International Speedway

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist as the article does not meet criterion 2 (in particular it has uncited statistics and opinion, and relies too much on primary sources). There are also problems with the prose (1a) and breadth of coverage (3a); see review comments by Royalbroil and Airplaneman below. I have also commented on the reassessment talk page. Geometry guy 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting this GAR as the article is a good article but doesn't meet requirements.

For one thing, I saw un-referenced material in the article, with a citation needed and an Un-referenced section template in the "Events" section (though I added it before the GAR).

I also feel like this article fails 1a, with, for example, the "Fatalities" section being only a one sentence paragraph.

• While I personally think the article fails GA criteria, I hope other editors state their opinons as well.

GamerPro64 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• KEEP I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't fail an article just because it fails one of the criteria.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it fails two parts of the criteria, as I mentioned reference problems. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Still doesn't fail in my opinion until it fails 4 of them.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. I reviewed Featured Articles that failed one thing and they still got delisted. Example. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured Articles are much different. I'm just talking about how it's ridiculous that your supposed to fail an article if they fail one of the criteria but I do a little more flexibility.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If they fail one of the quick fails, it fails. If the article is not properly referenced it fails, too, unless the user fixed it. Which I believe this is you first GAN, so if it gets delisted its not that big of a deal. The article always has room for improvement. All this is coming from a person who currently has ten good articles, and four delisted articles. If this fails its still atleast a B. If its not sourced propery then Remove. Every article for GA or FA, has to have a source for everything. Also, if it has a {{Citation needed}} template. It should be removed immediately. Just saying. --Nascar1996 02:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What you are mentioning no longer follows. The events section is sourced, and the fatalities section since it is on another article, can be only one sentence. So Keep. Nascar1996 03:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Obiously. You just did all of that with this edit. But still, I would more opinions on if the article should be A Good Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I know where I can find references. Find other places that need work and we will see. If you find a lot of work that still needs to be done, put it on here. I haven't thoroughly read the article good, but I don't see anything. I fyou do find a lot of work. I'm not going to do it. So it probably will not be kept. I am too busy with real life and the 2011 Daytona 500. Nascar1996 03:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To get very good comments ask User:Royalbroil and User:Airplaneman. Nascar1996 03:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Royalbroil

The article needs major work to be at Good Article standards, so I would support delisting except if significant work were done immediately. I would have concidered speedy failed this article had I been the reviewer since there are so many unreferenced statements.

First, I am very discouraged to see a WikiProject NASCAR member reviewing a NASCAR article. This never should have happened. I would never do a Good Article level review when I am so vested in a topic. To a non-involved party, it appears to be a rubber stamp job. Especially seeing the article declared to be at Good Article level without any comments.

Sourcing from reliable sources: There are far too many unsourced statements with statistics in every section. If the source applies to the entire paragraph then it should at least be duplicated at each of these statistics sentences. It's concerning to see that a single source was used to create that much text in the construction section. A bunch of wikilinks should be added to the construction section, so I added asphalt and base course. The citation from reliable sources is far from Good level which is why I would have speedy failed it.

Images: There's a great satellite image of the track that would be very helpful at the top of the article. I would spread out some of the images into the text since there's too much white space. The licensing looks good for each image.

Broad Coverage: The article is too broad in its coverage. It should get into more detail, especially with the non-existent text in the Events section. Cover some details about the major events at the track: the Daytona 500 and 24 hours of Daytona are two of the most important race events in the U.S., critical to their respective series, but there's no way for the reader to know this from a listing.

Article not up to date: "Because of good weather, the project will be officially complete ahead of the targeted January 1, 2011 completion date." - this needs to be updated. The date has passed and I watched off-season testing at the track on television. It brought back memories of watching the practice there in 2001. Maybe the article would benefit if I scanned in some of my old photographs from Victory Lane. The article talks about an upcoming tire practice in December 2010. Ouch.

And GamerPro64 is right, one major problem is enough to fail the article. I could keep on going but this is enough for now. Royalbroil 04:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because my name is on Look I'm not really involved with wikiproject NASCAR I'm more involved with wikiproject Pro Wrestling.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 04:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He was talking about me. I don't help with these articles though. I just do the races, and some copy-editing or cleaning up on other articles. I have never figured out how to improve venues. Nascar1996 11:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No hes not, the member who passed it. Was confused there. Nascar1996 11:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which of the GA criteria requires that an article be "up to date?" Even linkrot is allowed. Racepacket (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If any article is out of date, then it needs cleanup and an appropriate tag should be applies (like {{Missing information non-contentious}}, {{Update}}, or {{Out of date}}). Articles having cleanup tags are the first thing to look for. Royalbroil 05:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles which are out of date may be deficient with respect to clarity of prose (1a), factual accuracy (2) and/or breadth of coverage (3a). Articles with linkrot may fail verifiability (2) as the reader cannot verify a claim if a link is broken. Geometry guy 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC) PS. My compliments to Royalbroil for the thorough review comments.

Comments by Airplaneman

Quick look-through

• I don't think this article is up to GA standards at the moment. However, with some work, it can make it there. I don't have time for a comprehensive review, but here are some things I noticed:
  • Disperse the photo gallery (more info at WP:IG). Put relevant pictures in relevant sections. Extra ones should not be in the article; they add unnecessary bulk to the article, increasing clutter and loading times, especially for people with slower connections.
  • The Events section is poor at best. In my opinion, it should be fleshed out like the Track history section, giving an overview of what (notable) events are held at the track.
  • Overall, referencing is a bit sparse. Try finding a few more reliable, third-party sources to compliment what's already there and for the info that should be added.
  • The Fatalities section is alright considering it links to a main article. I am particularly concerned, however, with the unsourced claim that Dale Earnhardt is supposedly one of NASCAR's most notable drivers. The section itself is wholly unsourced.
  • The Fan amenities section could use more references.
• Airplaneman ✈ 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't even need a source to know Dale Earnhardt is a legend to the sport of NASCAR. He's not "supposedly", he is in a class by himself. Any fan will say the EXACT same thing.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Really you do. Other people who don't know the sport of NASCAR will not know who he is. That is the main reason why all of it should be sourced. Nascar1996 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nascarking, please take a look at WP:OR. What you just said is entirely your opinion, generated from your brain. Finding (reliable) sources back up the claims made and remove doubts about the verifiability of the facts given (unless the sources aren't reliable...) Does that make sense? Airplaneman ✈ 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's not my opinion I'd probably piss someone off if I did claim I said it was my opinion. See any NASCAR broadcast before 2001 and you'll hear that he's that.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He is, but other people don't know that. Nascar1996 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)