Talk:2010 Ford 400

Assessment

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. --Nascar1996 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Ford 400/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —WFC— 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. —WFC— 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall it's pretty promising. Here are the criteria:

1. Well-written:

• (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  • There are some grammatical statements that need clearing up, and a few instances of assuming knowledge that could reasonably be covered in the article. I'll give the article a copyedit tomorrow, and list any outstanding concerns afterwards.
• (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • 

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

• (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.
  • 
• (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources
  • At a glance there's no issue, but I haven't spot checked yet
• (c) it contains no original research.
  • Ties in with (b)

3. Broad in its coverage:

• (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  • 
• (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
  • 

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:

• (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • The fair use rationale for the race logo is fine, but the description page needs to state who actually holds the copyright, not just the website that the image was uploaded from.
    • I added some information to the image. I added the owner (Homestead Miami Speedway) and use (Ford 400). Nascar1996 00:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • 

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, —WFC— 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose issues

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:

Good examples

• "Kasey Kahne retained his pole position lead into the first corner, followed by Carl Edwards, who started second." The start was uneventful, so you describe what happened and move on quickly. Perfect.
• "On lap 12, Johnson passed A. J. Allmendinger to claim the third position, as David Reutimann and Kurt Busch collided into the wall." Great: you've picked out a key lap and described the important events perfectly.
• "On the following two laps, Jimmie Johnson took over the fourth position." Grammatically it should be "Over the following two laps," rather than "On". When using this sort of sentence, be careful to ensure that we know where the driver was before the sentence started. This example works, because we have been told that Johnson qualified sixth.
• "After starting from 37th, Denny Hamlin had moved to 27th, by lap six." Strikes the perfect balance. Highlights great progress from an important participant in the Championship, while not going into needless detail.
• "With assistance from Kyle Busch, Harvick took over fifth place on the following lap. Afterward, Edwards became the leader, after passing Truex, Jr." I just want to use this as an example of simple yet varied mid-race prose, to provide a contrast to a couple of "dull" examples below.

Bad examples

• "Four laps later, Johnson's teammate Jeff Gordon moved into tenth." As discussed in the third bullet point above, this might be an acceptable statement for a driver we have been following, such as Johnson. But we know nothing about Gordon at this stage. Has he has been making the sort of progress that Hamlin has? Or are we referring to the fact that he started eleventh, and advanced to tenth with an overtake on lap 10? Possible suggestion for this particular sentence "Eleventh-placed qualifier Jeff Gordon overtook (Regan Smith?) four laps later, to join team-mate Johnson in the top ten."
  • Since we don't know who he passed (reference does not explain excess information), and that he might have lost positions since the start of the race and regained them, it would be better to reword it differently. Gordon should very notable in the paragraph, though he was not able to compete for the championship he was still in the Chase, and is one of NASCAR's most notable drivers after having four championships himself. How would this sound Eleventh-placed qualifier Jeff Gordon joined team-mate Johnson in the top ten four laps later.? --Nascar1996 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I've added that. —WFC— 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• "During the 69th lap, Juan Pablo Montoya and Kahne made their pit stops. On the following lap, Edwards pitted, giving the first position to Johnson. On lap 71, Johnson pitted. Two laps later, Truex, Jr. became the leader, ahead of Kahne and Edwards." (Montoya, there's a blast from the past!) The prose is a bit dull. Also, I'm guessing that either Truex took the lead on lap 71, or that someone else held the lead between Johnson and Truex. Assuming Truex took over from Johnson, I'd suggest "During the 69th lap, Juan Pablo Montoya and Kahne made their pit stops. Edwards pitted the following lap, giving the first position to Johnson. In turn, he pitted on lap 71, handing the lead to Truex, Jr." It's a much nicer read, and also removes the confusion. If on the other hand someone else took the lead from Johnson, you might go "During the 69th lap, Juan Pablo Montoya and Kahne made their pit stops
  •  Done --Nascar1996 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "On lap 105, Jamie McMurray passed Truex, Jr. to move into second. By lap 111, Edwards had led 73 laps. Five laps later, David Ragan took over the tenth position, after passing Kahne. On the 125th lap, Almirola rounded out the top ten, as Truex, Jr. passed Edwards for the first position. On lap 135, the fourth caution was given because Marcos Ambrose spun sideways. On the following lap, all of the front runners pitted." No major understanding issues, but very dull, in contrast to the good start to the paragraph I quoted above. How about: "On lap 105, Jamie McMurray passed Truex, Jr. to move into second. Eleven laps later, David Ragan passed Kahne for the tenth position. Having led 86 of the first 124 laps, Edwards was finally passed on lap 125. Truex, Jr. moved into first position, and by the same lap Almirola had slipped to tenth. Marcos Ambrose spun sideways on lap 135, causing the fourth caution of the race. The front runners subsequently pitted."
  •  Done --Nascar1996 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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:

• This is, in my opinion, the best technique for reviewing races and team sport matches, particularly if it's your own work. Pick one fairly prominent driver, who is frequently mentioned and got to or near the end of the race. Read the race section through entirely. Think only about that driver while you're doing it, but don't skip ahead just because he isn't mentioned. Once you're done, use Ctrl + F to search for or highlight that driver's surname, and go back through the race, reading only the sentences where he is mentioned. Obviously feel free to make any edits as you go. Let me know who you picked and how you found this. I've seen it used in Formula One races in the past with amazing results, but it might not be for everyone.
  •  Done... I found one aweful sentence in the second or third paragraph. --Nascar1996 00:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Think about the way sentences start. As I've shown in the last "bad" example, it's fine for some sentences to start "On lap...", "By lap..." and "x laps later...", but try to cut down on the amount of consecutive sentences beginning like this.
  • I tried to cut it down as much as I could. --Nascar1996 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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, —WFC— 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I did a previous review with Nascar, and this I have to say looking at it before WFC did anything was a better starting point. Particually in the race section on the problems which I highlighted in the other article. But obviously WFC is more experienced than, me so I won't comment on this article but a GA is definatly there. KnowIG (talk) 14:02, 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. —WFC— 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fans are able to go in the infield. The 65,000 is just seating, while the 67,000 inlcudes the fans in the infield and in campers. So where do you think I should mention Ryan Newman? --Nascar1996 11:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The earliest opportunity I can see is laps 152/153: you've mentioned Johnson and McMurray. —WFC— 12:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this? --Nascar1996 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It does the job. I'm happy that the article now meets the three areas that I flagged in my initial assessment, and will pass the article. Nice work! —WFC— 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. Cheers! Nascar1996 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111025735/http://www.nascar.com/races/tracks/ to http://www.nascar.com/races/tracks/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012150720/http://www.nascar.com/news/features/points.system/ to http://www.nascar.com/news/features/points.system/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)