This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010 Ford 400 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2010 Ford 400 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Assessed as high importance, for the reason that it is the last race of the season, and usually the deciding race of the championship, almost solidified by the Top-Ten "playoff" system now inplace. -- Nascar 1996 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: — W F C— 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to read through an article first, jot down and familiarise myself with anything that I don't understand, and then give myself a few hours of distance before scrutinising it. At the latest I'll post the review tomorrow. — W F C— 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall it's pretty promising. Here are the criteria:
1. Well-written:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
For now the main thing is to investigate who holds the copyright for that logo, and add that to the description page. I'll list the things that need to be done to meet 1(a) once I've done the copyedit tomorrow, and I'll mark 2 as fine once I've sampled the references. Regards, — W F C— 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The cumulative effect of my copyedit can be seen here.
I do want to say this before I get into the nitty-gritty. The balance of the race section is perfect. You have honed in on what was important in the context of the race, and given it all appropriate weight. But while the rest of the article is well written, the race section becomes a pretty dull read in places, and is at times is confusing. I'll give some examples of good and bad writing below:
There's a GA in the making here, and I'm happy to put more work into this, although not all of it. I'd like you to go through the race section, and do the following two things:
Ping me once you've done those, and I'll be happy to come back and go through the race properly. All the other sections are in my opinion of GA quality. I'll put the article on hold for now. Regards, — W F C— 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the above was this, which certainly gives the race a bit more variety. I've done a little more, and am now happy to consider the prose to be reasonably well-written, clear and concise. Referencing looks fine too.
Just two small things before I pass this. The background section states that the capacity was 65,000 (and that reflects the source), but this doesn't tally with an attendance of 67,000. Not sure if it's a case of ref 6 being outdated, or whether there's another reason for more spectators than seats? Also, I think Ryan Newman needs to be mentioned at least once in the race. I understand that sometimes drivers score solid points without getting involved in major incidents (heck, Michael Schumacher did that a few times last season). But not mentioning him at all until the race has ended goes a little too far IMO. — W F C— 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Ford 400. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010 Ford 400 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2010 Ford 400 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessed as high importance, for the reason that it is the last race of the season, and usually the deciding race of the championship, almost solidified by the Top-Ten "playoff" system now inplace. -- Nascar 1996 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: — W F C— 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to read through an article first, jot down and familiarise myself with anything that I don't understand, and then give myself a few hours of distance before scrutinising it. At the latest I'll post the review tomorrow. — W F C— 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall it's pretty promising. Here are the criteria:
1. Well-written:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
For now the main thing is to investigate who holds the copyright for that logo, and add that to the description page. I'll list the things that need to be done to meet 1(a) once I've done the copyedit tomorrow, and I'll mark 2 as fine once I've sampled the references. Regards, — W F C— 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The cumulative effect of my copyedit can be seen here.
I do want to say this before I get into the nitty-gritty. The balance of the race section is perfect. You have honed in on what was important in the context of the race, and given it all appropriate weight. But while the rest of the article is well written, the race section becomes a pretty dull read in places, and is at times is confusing. I'll give some examples of good and bad writing below:
There's a GA in the making here, and I'm happy to put more work into this, although not all of it. I'd like you to go through the race section, and do the following two things:
Ping me once you've done those, and I'll be happy to come back and go through the race properly. All the other sections are in my opinion of GA quality. I'll put the article on hold for now. Regards, — W F C— 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the above was this, which certainly gives the race a bit more variety. I've done a little more, and am now happy to consider the prose to be reasonably well-written, clear and concise. Referencing looks fine too.
Just two small things before I pass this. The background section states that the capacity was 65,000 (and that reflects the source), but this doesn't tally with an attendance of 67,000. Not sure if it's a case of ref 6 being outdated, or whether there's another reason for more spectators than seats? Also, I think Ryan Newman needs to be mentioned at least once in the race. I understand that sometimes drivers score solid points without getting involved in major incidents (heck, Michael Schumacher did that a few times last season). But not mentioning him at all until the race has ended goes a little too far IMO. — W F C— 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Ford 400. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)