Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2015 Daytona 500/1
2015 Daytona 500[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I am requesting a community reassessment for this article, as I have recently quick-failed every article nominated by this user on the basis that the articles are extremely short of inline citations, and during the Good article review of 2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500, the nominator did not seem to sufficiently grasp the problem, leading me to believe that placing those articles on hold would not be an effective process. To avoid any accusations of a grudge against this user, I think a community reassessment would be more appropriate. This article, 2015 Daytona 500, like the others, is exceptionally short of inline citations. Within the body of the article, there are no citations at all in the second paragraph of the "Background" section, in the "Entry list" (although the table does have one), the first three paragraphs of the "Qualifying" section, the first two paragraphs of the "Budweiser Duel" section, two of the three paragraphs describing "Race Two". Within the "Race" section, there are only four inline citations, and they are mostly appear to be backing up specific facts, rather than providing a citation for the whole race summary. All the race statistics, awards, media and post-race standings have no inline citations. The prose itself isn't particularly engaging, but given the serious verifiability concerns, I haven't read it closely enough to offer full comment. Harrias talk 09:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the version I reviewed, I am ashamed to say that I overlooked some of what is mentioned above. I'll try to make up for it by providing citations later today. Thank you for keeping an eye out! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nascarking and Zwerg Nase: I'd suggest both of you take a look at 2010 Sylvania 300 (my FA), 2012 Budweiser Shootout (which is, in all likelihood, an FA-to-be in the coming days (thanks @Z105space:!)) and 2006 UAW-Ford 500 (a former FAC of mine that cannot seem to get a reviewer). Those three have been to FAC and back and are, in my opinion, the three best articles WikiProject NASCAR has to offer. They are all better articles because of the FAC process, which can be frustrating, but always gets articles into better shape once the process is complete. One problem that perhaps may not sit well with you, Nascarking, given the amount of work you've put into these articles, is that they may be over-detailed. For example, is it really necessary to give the entry list in a table of its own? Should the Budweiser Duels have that much detail given the fact that they have an article of their own? Additionally, the prose needs to be engaging, not just a bunch of one-liners (such as are seen here) or disjointed sentences. I also don't think all of those headers in the race section are necessary either. And most of all, citations, citations, citations. It's hard to have such a thing as "too many citations." The more, the better, so long as there aren't 17 of them cluttered in the infobox. I hope these suggestions help. Good luck with the article! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I added some refs to the background part. I think it would be best if @Nascarking: took care of the other stuff, since he knows far more about where to find infos than I do... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nascarking and Zwerg Nase: I'd suggest both of you take a look at 2010 Sylvania 300 (my FA), 2012 Budweiser Shootout (which is, in all likelihood, an FA-to-be in the coming days (thanks @Z105space:!)) and 2006 UAW-Ford 500 (a former FAC of mine that cannot seem to get a reviewer). Those three have been to FAC and back and are, in my opinion, the three best articles WikiProject NASCAR has to offer. They are all better articles because of the FAC process, which can be frustrating, but always gets articles into better shape once the process is complete. One problem that perhaps may not sit well with you, Nascarking, given the amount of work you've put into these articles, is that they may be over-detailed. For example, is it really necessary to give the entry list in a table of its own? Should the Budweiser Duels have that much detail given the fact that they have an article of their own? Additionally, the prose needs to be engaging, not just a bunch of one-liners (such as are seen here) or disjointed sentences. I also don't think all of those headers in the race section are necessary either. And most of all, citations, citations, citations. It's hard to have such a thing as "too many citations." The more, the better, so long as there aren't 17 of them cluttered in the infobox. I hope these suggestions help. Good luck with the article! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Reviewers please revisit and reach a consensus. I'd rather not close this as no consensus. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delist for now. Not up to par with the other GAs in the project; however, I firmly believe it can get there. It needs a trim (there are too many odd-ball, unsourced stats that are being tracked) and copyedit. @Nascarking and Zwerg Nase: I suggest you both take a look at my post at above, dated 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC). I never like to be arrogant or to brag, but I truly think modeling this article (and all the others) after 2010 Sylvania 300 would be the best option here. As it is an FA, it is of the highest quality possible and I truly think it can help you in getting this article to the same level. But sometimes, to move forward, you have to take a step back, which is why I'm voting to delist here. Good luck! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @ZappaOMati, Jahn1234567890, The Bushranger, Nascar1996, Cs-wolves, and Doctorindy: If you have an opinion, please feel free to chime in as a consensus needs to be reached. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for the extra edits, but pinging the nominator, @Harrias:, is probably a good idea as well. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delist. After briefly looking through the article, I found some sections, such as Entry list, Qualifying and Media, that have large amounts unsourced information. That alone is enough to disqualify the article from meeting good article criteria. I would recommend reviewing other race reports that have met the criteria before renominating this article (you can find all of them here and here). – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 03:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)