Wikipedia:Peer review/2013 Mudsummer Classic/archive1

2013 Mudsummer Classic

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have intentions to nominate this page for GAN, and I can not seem to find anything else to add to improve this page.

Thanks, NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Royalbroil

LCQ wasn't spelled out as "last chance qualified"
I don't understand how NASCAR can classify Eldora as an intermediate track even though it's shorter that the Bristol short track. You've reliably sourced it so you should leave it.
"dirt track ringer" should be defined
(suggestion) I heard that Goodyear started with a dirt modified tire...You could research and attempt to substantiate
lots of references need wikilinks
How is the "Racing News Network" a reliable source? Same with Catchfence. SB Nation looks iffy in reliability depending on the writer. The rest are good.

Overall, very well done! It's looking good for a GA run. Royal broil 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so here's what I attempted to accomplish today before hitting the hay for the night: Zappa O Mati 04:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure what you mean by that, but I presume you meant for put (LCQ) for "last change qualifier".
Already covered.
Replaced "ringer" with "specialist", since I assume most should know the latter's meaning much more than the former.
I'll check it out later.
I'll deal with that later
~~Replaced the Catchfence one with the Jayski team chart, which, although it doesn't focus on the topic particularly, it does still mention Joe as Jennifer's father.~~ I took a look at the Racing News Network one, but I could not find another source with Tom Gideon (director of safety) stating the track is fine, instead finding a NASCAR spokesman and Smoke's assurances that the track is fine ([1]).

Catchfence reprints team press releases, so it's countable as a primary source - simple facts (such as the one that was cited here) can be cited using it, but not controversial ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I'll just keep the Catchfence one in. Looking at the RNN one, meanwhile, it's written by Mark Aumann, a writer for NASCAR.com, and IIRC, this same ref was formerly on NASCAR.com, but I presume it was later transcluded onto RNN. Should the RNN ref stay? Zappa O Mati 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The big purge they did of NASCAR.com's back content when they dumped Turner Sports was atrocious. If you're certain that it was an article that was originally on NASCAR.com, putting "archived from...(etc.)" in the reference should work, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I did manage to find it ([2]). Zappa O Mati 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better! If you want to keep the Mark Aumann article that's fine- but I'd mention it in the GA nomination that he wrote for nascar.com along with a link to prove that his writing has a history of proper vetting. Royal broil 01:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]