141:, 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.
199:(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
137:, 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,
294:
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!
203:) 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
375:. 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
128:
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
153:
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!
405:
With great reluctance, I'm also putting my vote for delisting. Having personally reviewed other GAN's, I can't continue to ignore that an article I've put so much work into is not GA material.--
278:
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.
290:
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
130:
69:
65:
50:
17:
379:. I would recommend reviewing other race reports that have met the criteria before renominating this article (you can find all of them
384:
380:
42:
263:
134:
115:
426:
395:
367:
345:
304:
269:
238:
216:
163:
147:
121:
90:
363:
341:
300:
212:
184:
58:
415:
255:
234:
159:
107:
190:
336:
If you have an opinion, please feel free to chime in as a consensus needs to be reached. Thanks, --
319:
315:
359:
337:
296:
208:
291:
196:
180:
229:
took care of the other stuff, since he knows far more about where to find infos than I do...
138:
35:
248:
Reviewers please revisit and reach a consensus. I'd rather not close this as no consensus.
441:
406:
389:
331:
323:
311:
285:
281:
249:
230:
224:
174:
170:
155:
101:
376:
327:
200:
435:
353:
142:
221:
I added some refs to the background part. I think it would be best if
187:(which is, in all likelihood, an FA-to-be in the coming days (thanks
207:. I hope these suggestions help. Good luck with the article! --
350:
Apologies for the extra edits, but pinging the nominator,
204:
85:
77:
46:
358:, is probably a good idea as well. Thanks, --
8:
179:I'd suggest both of you take a look at
7:
205:17 of them cluttered in the infobox
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
135:2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500
86:Watch article reassessment page
1:
458:
122:09:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
427:14:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
396:03:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
368:17:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
346:17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
305:17:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
270:07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
239:18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
217:17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
164:09:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
148:09:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
99:: Consensus for delisting
185:2012 Budweiser Shootout
131:the Good article review
377:good article criteria
91:Most recent review
421:
403:Reluctant delist.
292:2010 Sylvania 300
266:
258:
197:2006 UAW-Ford 500
181:2010 Sylvania 300
118:
110:
449:
422:
419:
411:
392:
357:
335:
289:
264:
256:
252:
228:
194:
178:
139:2015 Daytona 500
116:
108:
104:
100:
88:
82:
73:
54:
28:2015 Daytona 500
457:
456:
452:
451:
450:
448:
447:
446:
432:
431:
418:
409:
390:
351:
309:
279:
276:Delist for now.
250:
222:
188:
168:
102:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
455:
453:
445:
444:
434:
433:
430:
429:
399:
398:
370:
348:
320:The Bushranger
316:Jahn1234567890
307:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
126:
125:
124:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
454:
443:
440:
439:
437:
428:
425:
424:
423:
414:
413:
412:
404:
401:
400:
397:
394:
393:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
369:
365:
361:
360:Bentvfan54321
355:
349:
347:
343:
339:
338:Bentvfan54321
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
308:
306:
302:
298:
297:Bentvfan54321
293:
287:
283:
277:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
262:
259:
253:
240:
236:
232:
226:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
209:Bentvfan54321
206:
202:
198:
192:
186:
182:
176:
172:
167:
166:
165:
161:
157:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
145:
140:
136:
132:
123:
119:
114:
111:
105:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
417:
416:
408:
407:
402:
388:
372:
275:
260:
247:
143:
127:
112:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
47:visual edit
391:Nascar1996
332:Doctorindy
324:Nascar1996
312:ZappaOMati
286:Zwerg Nase
282:Nascarking
251:DragonZero
231:Zwerg Nase
225:Nascarking
175:Zwerg Nase
171:Nascarking
156:Zwerg Nase
103:DragonZero
328:Cs-wolves
191:Z105space
183:(my FA),
436:Category
265:Contribs
195:!)) and
117:Contribs
354:Harrias
330:, and
144:Harrias
70:history
51:history
37:Article
442:GAR/60
410:Nascar
373:Delist
97:Result
387:). –
79:Watch
16:<
420:king
385:here
383:and
381:here
364:talk
342:talk
301:talk
284:and
257:Talk
235:talk
213:talk
201:here
173:and
160:talk
109:Talk
66:edit
43:edit
133:of
438::
366:)
344:)
326:,
322:,
318:,
314:,
303:)
295:--
268:)
237:)
215:)
162:)
120:)
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
362:(
356::
352:@
340:(
334::
310:@
299:(
288::
280:@
261:·
254:(
233:(
227::
223:@
211:(
193::
189:@
177::
169:@
158:(
113:·
106:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.