Talk:2010 Sylvania 300

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Sylvania 300/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "it was the twenty-seventh, and the first race" I'd add in race in after 27th as well; a bit repetitive but sounds better imo.
  •  Done; I believe I did it correctly. Nascar1996
• "Some of the Chase for the Sprint Cup participants, such as, Jimmie Johnson, Kurt Busch, and Denny Hamlin was in the top-ten for most of the race" remove comma after as, also '..hamlin were in the top ten'
  •  Done Nascar1996 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "top-five" dash not needed
  •  Done Nascar1996 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Tony Stewart was leading the race, when he ran out of fuel; giving the lead to Clint Bowyer." no comma after race, comma instead after fuel.
  •  Done Nascar1996 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Some competitors who are in the 2010 Chase for the Sprint Cup, are happy about their chances of winning the championship" no comma needed, were instead of are, and 'happy' sounds a bit iffy in this context; try 'optimistic'.
  •  Done Nascar1996 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Three practice sessions was held" were held
  •  Done Nascar1996 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "while the second session will last 50 minutes. The third and final session will last 60 minutes." lasted 50/lasted 60. there should be no present or future tense anywhere in the article.
  •  Done; I forgot to change it. Nascar1996 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• What makes Jayski.com a reliable source?
  • Jayski is a website owned and operated by ESPN, bust is only for NASCAR racing. Nascar1996 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "but only forty-three was able" were. Check all was/were mentions in the article to make sure they're right. There's enough issues that I might've missed one or two.
  •  Done Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "such as," again, comma not needed.
  •  Done Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• The entire race is sourced to one site. This isn't a deal-breaker, but would you know of any news sources etc. that had worthy information to include that was not in the recap?
  • Sadly, most of the reliable news sources will expire. Though I know of a race summary in video, but covers the same as the lap-by-lap. Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• The sentences start to get repetitive about halfway through, with most of them becoming "On lap xx, y. On lap xx..." Modify a few of them to make reading easier.
  • Will you tell me an exact point please? Thanks. (tell me around what lap then I'll find it.) Nascar1996 18:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done Please review though. Nascar1996 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• It seems like you pretty much took whatever was in that recap and re-added it into the article. There's probably a few things you could trim that aren't that important to have in the article. If everything listed should be included though then I won't worry about it, you'd know better than I. It just starts feeling longer than it actually is after a while.
  • When I started I didn't add enough information. A lot of this was important to the race though, so it is needed. Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "After pit stops, Bobby Labonte and Casey Mears was unable to continue the race." as above
  •  Done Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Two weeks ago, going into Richmond, your feeling the confidence level in our race team, in our equipment level, everything was good" this part of the quote is not in the source.
  •  Removed Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "two race teams were given penalties, including" I'd use a colon instead of a comma and remove including, since you mention all applicable racers.
  •  Done Nascar1996 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold for a week. After the issues are fixed, I'm gonna read through the article again and see if I catch anything else. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixes look good, so I'll do another read-through soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: as in reference 21, I'd recommend adding the authors to all news articles, if there is one listed (most should have one). Airplaneman ✈ 04:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All of them have it. Nascar1996 04:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The track specifications state New Hampshire Motor Speedway as an oval track, and the prose stated it as a quad-oval. I have fixed this. ~NerdyScienceDude 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay thanks, I didn't catch that. Nascar1996 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

After a second review, here are the rest of my concerns:

• "The race was won by Clint Bowyer, for the" Bowyer of the.
• In paragraph 2 of background, you probably don't been all the "points" words; you could just say 5,030 instead of 5,030 points in a spot or two.
• "Denny Hamlin also made comments about the Chase. He said, " the two sentences can be combined; chase, saying, "
• "but only forty-three were able" able to what? I presume to race, but the way it's worded makes it ambiguous.
• "Bowyer had moved into the third position, after" no comma needed
• "After nineteen laps, Jimmie Johnson had moved eight positions to seventeenth, as Kevin Harvick had moved seven positions into twentieth." moved up or down?
• "Dale Earnhardt, Jr. moved into seventh, after passing David Reutimann and Tony Stewart" no comma needed
• "Jeff Burton moved to sixth, as Jeff Gordon passed Dale Earnhardt, Jr. for eleventh" same
• There's a few more comma issues identical to those above; won't list each single one but they're there.

Once these are fixed I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nascar1996 03:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The article finally satisfies my concerns, so I'll pass it as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Some questions while I copyedit

In the second paragraph of the lead, Bowyer "who led the most laps in the race with 176". Knowing nothing about Nascar, it's unclear what this is intended to mean.

Did he...

• have the most completed laps in the race at the time he took the lead?
• have the most completed laps in the race at the time he took the lead and also at the end of the race?
• win the race immediately because of that?
• win the race later because of that?
• something else?

Secondly, 3.677 million watched on television. As I assume this is a rating based on surveys etc, I am very uncomfortable with the three digits after the decimal point, implying precision to the extent of reasonable certainty that there were no less than 3,676,500 people and no more than 3,677,500 watching on TV. Although there might be an argument for having it consistent with other articles on similar events if they too imply this sort of precision in viewing figures, I'd be much happier with "3.67 million" unless there are strong objections.

I haven't actually checked MOS for how such numbers are expressed :)

(Or unless it is pay-per-view and the exact number of viewers is recorded, of course.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• For a response to the first one, it just tells us you led the most laps, such as Bowyer led 176 laps throughout the 300 lap event, or he was in the first position for 176 laps. So its none of your thoughts, which how it reads may be a little misleading. Nascar1996 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • For a response to the second one, I'm fine with it like that, the reference has all three digits, so I'm not clearly sure. Nascar1996 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining these. I am starting to understand more about NASCAR already!

I've completed my copyedit (although I may be tempted to do additional tweaks whenever the mood takes me). Note that my native language is British English, and of course since NASCAR occurs mostly only in the USA, the article should be in U.S. English. I can usually manage to correct myself into U.S. English; but it's worth someone quickly reading through the article, and also checking what I've done just to see if any obvious Britishisms stand out.

On a style issue, I've removed a fair number of commas, and also have used "took third position" instead of "took the third position" throughout. If the latter really is more natural U.S. English and the former sounds wrong to American ears, then let me know and I will change it back.

Some specifics:

• In the infobox, "wind out of the NW at 3 mph" sounds slightly wrong to me. Is "out of..." the normal usage for this in the USA?
  • Yes, that means that the wind is coming out of the North West at 3 MPH.Nascar1996 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, so long as you're happy it sounds natural. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• I've changed 3.677 million to 3.68 million, throughout.
  • Okat thanks.Nascar1996 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• I am worried that I may have made a sentence in the second paragraph of "Background", incorrect or nonsensical, due to an incomplete understanding of how the Chase for the Sprint Cup works. Your original had "Matt Kenseth and Clint Bowyer was also tied with 5,000 because of the Chase for the Sprint Cup reset." My replacement has "In the parallel Chase for the Sprint Cup, Matt Kenseth and Clint Bowyer both started with their points total reset to 5,000." The source does indeed list both these people as having 5000 points at that time, but it's really not clear to me whether they might have had more points in the overall championship and had them reduced (doesn't this unfairly disadvantage them?) or whether the 5000 points start only affects their Chase points, or what. The important thing is; does my replacement sentence both make sense for the reader, and describe the situation accurately.
  • Makes sense to me. It is also an advantage. By number of wins they are listed, then every win is worth ten points. Both had the same amount of wins so the same points. Nascar1996 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• In the fourth paragraph of the section "Race", it is stated that one driver "drove to the garage" and another "went to the garage". To British ears, this sounds slightly strange. Is it a NASCAR term that has an accepted meaning? Does it mean that they retired from the race, or that they had some sort of pit-stop related to mechanical defects rather than routine changes; or something else. The reason I ask is that I would be tempted to change one of those phrases for something slightly different, once I know what exactly is being referred to.
  • When someone drove to the garage they may be retired or they are fixing a problem so they can continue to race.Nascar1996 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • OK thanks, I might tweak that slightly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• In the ninth paragraph of the section "Race", it is mentioned that "the eighth and final caution came out". Is this 100% standard phrasing for NASCAR reporting? Without a background in it, I am guessing that what actually came out was the safety car, and what happened/occured/was announced, was the caution. If you agree, I'll rephrase it a bit.
  • You can rephrase a bit. It could just be named the eighth caution or final caution. Nascar1996 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • OK thanks, I will tweak that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• In the first paragraph of the section "Post-race", Bowyer is quoted as saying, "I was really going to push him across." Quoting him is indeed essential, but what on earth is he talking about? Our readers deserve to be told who the "him" is, and not be left confused.
  • I believe he was talking about Tony Stewart. Nascar1996 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I need more info here... I really don't understand what he is talking about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• I've boldly replaced various occurences of things like "next, X said", "afterwards, Y commented on the race" in the section "post-race", with some rather weakly editorialising mumbling that characterises what they said. Please be sure to read over this and see if you're happy that it doesn't say too much that isn't either adequately backed by the cited sources, or totally reasonable commentary based on the quote itself.
  • I did, you did fine with it. Nascar1996 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• In the fifth paragraph of the section "Post-race", Tony Stewart reacted to the announcement by saying, "It's possible for sure." I am guessing that he was referring to the possibility of winning a race, several races, a championship, the chase sprint, or something else. But our readers should not be left wondering what he is talking about. What is he talking about - and is it something that ends at the end of 2010, or earlier, or later, or something else?
  • He was talking about the penalty. Nascar1996 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm really interested in exactly what is "a possible". Unless you're sure that he was saying the penalty was possibly fair, then he's talking about something else. There is some context here that I'm missing. We could just miss out his first quoted sentence "it's a possible for sure", but I think it's better to understand it and explain it if we can. Any ideas what he means? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of each of these points (some are just for information, and can be ignored if they look fine to people who know the subject area better), and then we can do some final tweaks.

• • • • You may want to review that reference. Nascar1996 00:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't view this as a good reason to think that to copyedit a NASCAR article you need someone who knows about NASCAR, or at least someone whose native language is U.S. English. By not knowing the intricacies of the subject matter, it has been so much easier for me to see what is not obvious to the ordinary reader, and what might need expanding a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have re-worded some parts of the post-race section to introduce a bit more context so that the quotes are clearer. The last remaining one that I can't really do much with is "I was really going to push him across." I think you're right that Bowyer is referring to Tony Stewart, but it's not clear from the context in this article, and very hard to make it clear unless the article is restructured to follow the sense of the USA Today article that's the reference. (And that would end up being too close paraphrasing, I feel.) So, you may want to choose a different Bowyer quote or just phrase this part differently. I've tweaked a few other phrases as well, and apart from that one quote, it all looks good to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Qualifying figures

The article states "The two drivers that failed to qualify for the race were Jeff Green and Johnny Sauter."

However the qualifying list shows that Sauter was faster than both Tony Raines and Andy Lally, the 41st and 42nd qualifiers.

Incidentally, that should be ...two drivers who failed ... not ...two drivers that failed.... Moriori (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Sylvania 300. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/NH/Loudon/2010-09-19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201140154/http://jayski.com/pages/tvratings2010.htm to http://www.jayski.com/pages/tvratings2010.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Sylvania 300. 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/20170104162555/http://www.espn.com/rpm/nascar/cup/columns/story?columnist=newton_david&id=5610555 to http://www.espn.com/rpm/nascar/cup/columns/story?columnist=newton_david&id=5610555

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Sylvania 300. 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/20170104090840/http://www.espn.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=5602827 to http://www.espn.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=5602827
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170104090833/http://www.espn.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=5630030 to http://www.espn.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=5630030

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)