Talk:List of Daytona 500 pole position winners

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources[edit]

will add more as I can find. — Ched :  ?  00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mother-load

— Ched :  ?  15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article move-rename[edit]

I strongly disapprove of the recent move/rename of Daytona 500 pole position winners to List of Daytona 500 pole position winners that was performed recently. (diff) I object for 2 reasons:

  1. This move was performed without any discussion with the articles current and ongoing content contributors whatsoever (admittedly, including me).
  2. This article is much more than just a list. It has a definable "lead", and prose sections such as:
    • 1 Procedure
    • 2 Daytona 500 pole winners (the actual list)
      • 2.1 Notes
    3 Statistics
      • 3.1 Multiple Daytona 500 pole winners
      • 3.2 Consecutive Daytona 500 pole winners[10]
      • 3.3 Daytona 500 winners from the pole position[10]
      • 3.4 Second round fastest qualifiers
    • 4 Selected history
    • 5 References
    • 6 See also

Now, I know it's only a web page, and not something to get all worked up over. Also, as a member of the WP:NODRAMA efforts, I'm not going to blindly revert. I also realize that there has been recent discussion and efforts to improve the article for a submission to WP:FLC. This does not preclude the possibility, in my opinion, that an article can achieve FLC status, by existing solely as a list. In reviewing the verbiage and the samples at: WP:LISTNAME, I don't believe that this rename/move was the best option available to us.

Now, as I have opened this discussion - what should the "Title" of the article. My own choice would be Daytona 500 pole positions, but hopefully we can get some feedback on this, and find a solution that everyone can be happy with. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  05:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support renamed to List of Daytona 500 pole position winners I initially wondered about the move and I reviewed WP:LISTNAME. The article is really based on the winners of the Daytona 500 pole position. Lists can have a lead, explanation, and possibly even significant prose (like this article does) and non-OR analysis. I don't have a strong position either way so I'm not worked up at all. Royalbroil 05:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of... is the correct name. This is a list, and to not call simply Daytona 500 pole positions make it look like it is a regular article. WP:LISTS do have ledes, refs, and some FLs even have sections of prose. All the relevant information about the winners, which is the page's subject, is in tabular or bullet list format. Only the bit that provides background context about the Daytona 500 pole position is in prose, and the page would still be completely understandable without that. So it's a list, and should be titled as such. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie - thanks folks. I'm certainly willing to admit when I'm wrong, and learn from the experience. ;) — Ched :  ?  05:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see I got here late. My rationale for moving was highlighted above. Sorry for the jolt. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

section removal[edit]

The section: #Second round fastest qualifiers is difficult to source. While it is valid info, much of it at this time is OR. I also think it is a bit of a fork from the design and intent of the article. How would everyone feel about removing that section?

I can see removing it if a solid source isn't found. Like you said, it is a bit off-topic. Royalbroil 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section #Selected history also has a touch of "trivia" to it. Should we source it, or remove it? Would there be a way to incorporate it into a more "prose" style of section? Does Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists have weight here since this is a list in itself? — Ched :  ?  10:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed except in the unlikely event that a reliable source can be found talking about these specific races being important qualifying events. The Notes needs an explanation for why the pole sitter was not the fastest qualifier (maybe second round?). Royalbroil 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got that information out of the NASCAR annual media guide books. They are also in the Daytona 500 programs stats sections. I can work tonight to properly reference them. In addition, I was going to work on more of those, researching them on microfilm. At one point there was a year recently when a second-fastest qualifier was fastest...1990-something, but I can't find it. The reason I wanted to keep it was because (even in early years), the pole winner in not always the fastest qualifier, and this is telling that story. Doctorindy (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We left that part in at the end of the list. I was able to reference that they weren't the fast qualifier, but in the early years, I've had to leave it at that for now. I can compare speeds to starting positions - but haven't been able to find the "why" for the 1960's yet. Did you want to put one of the other sections back in as well? — Ched :  ?  20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion[edit]

  • I read a sports almanac which described when they used two-lap combined runs. I'll see if I can find it, and source it. Doctorindy (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article[edit]

Second round fastest qualifiers[edit]

Through 2000, NASCAR held second-round qualifying for the Daytona 500 and all other races. Drivers not locked into the field during the first round (pole round) were permitted to make a second attempt to better their time trial. Drivers choosing to participate in second-round qualifying would forfeit their first-round time, and try again from scratch. The intent was to put in a better time, however, if a slower time was posted, it had to be accepted. Due to the nature of qualifying for the Daytona 500 at the time, opting to try for a faster time was often a strategic risk.

Since second-round qualifying was held on a different day during the week than pole qualifying, differing weather conditions were occasionally a factor. In rare occasions, a driver in second-round qualifying actually posted a time equal to or better than that of the pole winner. However, that driver would not be awarded the pole position. Drivers who opted for second-round qualifying lined up behind the pole day qualifiers for the Twin 125-mile qualifying races. Second-round qualifying was eliminated from NASCAR competition after the 2000 season.

I've moved this here from the article. After discussions with others, I think it is a bit of a WP:FORK, but ultimately the decision to move was based on the lack of sources I could find after hours of searching. I think trying to keep this in the article would hinder the WP:FLC process, and likely need to be removed in the end anyway. — Ched :  ?  04:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article 2[edit]

Selected history[edit]

  • 1979: Pole qualifying was moved to Sunday at 10 a.m., followed by the ARCA 200. The newly introduced Busch Clash would be held after the ARCA race at 3 p.m.
  • 1980: Heavy winds on Sunday during pole qualifying delayed the proceedings by 90 minutes.
  • 1981: Morning rain washed out pole qualifying, and it was rescheduled for Monday.
  • 1983: Rain washed out all scheduled activities for Sunday.
  • 1985: Track officials reorganized the schedule for track activities for the weekend. Daytona 500 pole qualifying was moved from Sunday to Saturday, and the Busch Clash was moved from to 12 p.m. Sunday, followed by the ARCA 200.
  • 1992: For one year, Daytona 500 pole qualifying and the Busch Clash swapped days. The Busch Clash was held Saturday, and qualifying was held Sunday. This move was made at the request of CBS, who wanted the additional time on Sunday for their coverage of the 1992 Winter Olympics.
  • 2003: Pole qualifying for the Daytona 500 was moved to Sunday afternoon, and the Budweiser Shootout was moved to Saturday night at 8 p.m. The ARCA 200 was moved to Saturday afternoon, just prior to the Shootout.

I think we might be able to work some of this info into the prose of the article, but as an additional list, it comes across as trivia in its current form. If someone can find the sources to verify this, I'd be happy to work it in. — Ched :  ?  04:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of that came from Orlando Sentinel newspaper microfilm. I did not, however, make a very good effort at documenting it when I wrote it. I did the research when I was working on the Bud Shootout page. Doctorindy (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, and their online archives only date back to 85 - and they are pay per view. I'll try to do a little more digging too. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I was asked to comment here. Keep in mind that I don't know much about NASCAR...

  • I was pleasantly surprised to see that there was a fairly detailed description of the procedure. As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, you might make a mention of the procedures (And history) in it.  Done
  • Even though this is a list, the prose still needs to be grammatically correct, well-written, etc. I see sentence fragments (including the first sentence: "Winners of the Pole position for the NASCAR Sprint Cup Daytona 500.").  Done
  • There shouldn't be any links in the bold text. You can move the link to pole position to the next appearance in the article.  Done
  • Even though "pole position" is linked, I would expect a basic definition, since it's vital to readers' understanding.  Done
  • "Coor's Pole qualifying is currently held one week prior to the Daytona 500." "Currently" is a dated word. If the relative date of the qualifier (is it "qualifying" or "qualifier"?) is constantly changing, then use "Since $year..." If not, then just remove "currently".  Done and added history of name with ref.
  • Can we use a more descriptive name for the header column of "Year"? Also, it would be nice if you could blue the red links, although not a requirement.  Done ?

I'll have more later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll work on the other items as well. Thank you for your help Dabomb87 - it's greatly appreciated! — Ched :  ?  20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
couple more done I think - still need to complete first item — Ched :  ?  20:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll try to return to this in between 24 and 36 hours from now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GREAT! Once we get all this done, will you be the one who noms it? Or will you be one of the contribs? I guess I'll just wait for now and quit being so impatient. Let us know what we need to do next, and thank you for all your help. ;) — Ched :  ?  00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royalbroil review[edit]

I'm finishing a major copyedit on the article and some expansion. It needs many, many more citations. I marked some of the glaring omissions. I think that every sentence should have a citation, except if it is part of a group of sentences from a single source. This is definitely required at the featured level. I'll continue helping with this article as my time permits. Please read the body to help smooth out choppy and awkward content. I always read my GA attempts at least 5 times with a highly critical eye on every word looking for cleaner or smoother ways to say the same thing. I'm thinking about which featured article contributors that I should ask to review the article. I'm thinking about my friend who is the author of List of Swimming World Swimmers of the Year who is a Formula One fan (thus has specialist racing knowledge - even if not specific to NASCAR). I like how that article has LOTS of pictures of the participants - let's add that to the list of things to do! Another thing to do after everything else is done is to paste the article into at least one spell and grammar checker. I use Word 2007. Trust me, the article needs a fair bit of work to get it to Featured standards. Royalbroil 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is very hard to follow - it jumps between topics and it's not strictly chronological. We should pick one method. How about we create a sponsorship subsection under history and go through the list of sponsors? We could do the same thing for the length of the qualifiers. Royalbroil 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across a motorsport article that is ready for featured consideration: Rudolf Caracciola. This is the prose quality and level of citation that we need to accomplish. Note that only controversial information in the lead is cited, the rest gets cited when the same content is write in the main body text. Note how the lead is a summary of the rest of the article and it could be used as a standalone article for someone to get a snapshot of the topic without having to read the article. Royalbroil 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will admit, I tried to leave as much "original" copy as possible, and still expand on what was here. I'll take a day or two away from the article, and if someone else doesn't "ce" then I'll have a go at it. One thing I'm not partial to is the Petty pic in the lead. I realize he was NASCAR's poster-boy in the 70's, but he still only had 1 pole. I'd think that a better choice may be:
  1. Bob Welborn (first pole, but I can't find a pic)
  2. Fireball Roberts (1st 3 in a row, and consecutive - and we do have car pics, but no head shot)
  3. Buddy Baker (first to have 4 poles)
  4. Dale Earnhardt (10 qualifier wins in a row - but didn't always have the pole, based on speed)
  5. Bill Elliott (has the all time speed record, and 4 poles)
  6. Martin Truex, Jr. (The most recent pole winner)
I've also seen the argument about refs being so abundant that they disrupt the flow of the copy, but there's probably a compromise in there somewhere. — Ched :  ?  04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care which image is used first so I don't mind if Petty's picture leaves the article. We could use the picture of Fireball Robert's 1962 car, but I think the perspective is weird. This is no picture of Buddy Baker and that's the wrong year for the car. Dale Earnhardt had only 1 pole. For Elliott, the signing in picture is ugly and my picture of his Talladega car might not be the right car (it is the right year). Truex's picture is really odd with him waving funny. We could move Jimmie Johnson's image to the lead - a recent driver and a two-time winner. Royalbroil 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm ... I see what you mean about Truex, I'm surprised we don't have more for Baker (putting that article on my list to work on). Yea, I'd kinda be in favor of swapping the Petty and Johnson pics at this point. Question Do we ever put galleries in "List" articles? I like the way the pics run down the side of the list, and I'd imagine given the number of drivers that have gotten the pole, we probably have a pretty big collection of pics we could use. I do like the ones you picked out. I should probably acquaint myself with your commons gallery - just to know what we do have. — Ched :  ?  06:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I move Johnson to the lead and took out Petty's image. My goal with the images down the right hand side was to have at least one photo per decade. I'm satisfied with it after this change. I don't like the idea of a gallery in this case. A gallery is much better in a city article, showing photographs taken around the city. My commons gallery is only pictures that I took myself, not all of the NASCAR images that I uploaded from other flickr friends. There is no single category for them. I took pictures of all of the Nationwide Series cars at Milwaukee while they were sitting on pit lane before the race, but I have not uploaded any of them here to Wikipedia. Just to my flickr account. It's a lot of work and I don't know how useful they are. So let me know if you need one. I did upload pictures of all of the drivers which I took before/during driver introductions. I got almost every driver. Royalbroil 11:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK[edit]

I've done everything that my abilities have allowed me to do here. Let me know what's next, or if there is anything else I can do. — Ched :  ?  08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed citations from headings. They are supposed to be on the first element. For wikilinks, they should only happen on the first instance in the article. How can we deal with sortlinks in the tables, knowing that there should be wikilinks only in the first instance? Another problem is probably the many redlinks in the article. We should probably put up some quick stubs. I need to run, going on a day trip to pick cherries. Royalbroil 12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that {{sortname}} has a parameter |nolink=1 which should work for delinking (if you have time). This is for both driver's names and car make. Royalbroil 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I'll take a look at that sortname template later today and see how it works. AHHH ... "facepalm" ... they YEARS are relinks. Geesh .. I totally missed that earlier. Hmmm ... might have an idea for that. I'll talk to you later - have a good time. I'll see what I can do here a little later today and tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  12:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - that's not gonna work - the "List of Daytona 500" thing is a redirect. Geesh .... 9 keepable stubs eh? .. Boy you are a tough taskmaster RB. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier if it comes out now, isn't it? I did read the sarcasm in your voice. We have lots more time, and it sure beats scrambling to make some sub-stubs. The articles can be stubs and made quickly with some formula, stating the race date, winner. The starting lineup and finishing positions can wait until later if we want. Royalbroil 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie. Originally I thought I might be able to change those "redlinks" to a section in something like List of Daytona 500 winners, but I see that got merged and redirected to Daytona 500. The sarcasm was only that I worry about having to go to CSD, or AfD discussions. Anyway - I did get the stubs created, and used 3 good refs for each. I think most are expandable and perhaps there's even a few potential DYKs in there as well (after expansion of course). So, here's what I did:

←

Hopefully that will resolve potential problems as far as redlinks anyway. I'm going to do a little research and reading up on the {{sortname}} template, and see where I can incorporate that into my ever expanding editing skills. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help this little puppy along - and I'll try to get to it as time permits. Cheers and best. ;-) — Ched :  ?  16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did Fireball Roberts only - let me know if I've got the right idea, and I'll do the rest if it's right. Not sure I completely understand the purpose of it though. — Ched :  ?  17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles look real good, thanks! I had an article at FAC and everyone complained about multiple wikilinks to the same article. I looking around and found Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Repeated_links, which makes it sound like the table wikilinks should stay. So I suppose we just need to worry about duplicate wikilinks in the text. Is this how you read it? Royalbroil 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .. Yes. I agree 100%. I guess I should just go ahead and remove it then. I'll give the article one more read through in the next day or two, and if I see any links that are the same, especially if they're close to each other - I'll remove them. — Ched :  ?  00:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold off with removing links from the table. I asked User:YellowMonkey to do a peer review of the article at FL level. Royalbroil 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Way cool! I always wanted to work with YM! Had seen their posts, but other than a few "support per YellowMonkey" things here and there, I haven't gotten to really do any actual article work with him/her. I'm not in any rush - I see s/he has posted some thoughts, tips, and suggestions here, so I'll read through that stuff, and see what I can come up with. Cheers. ;) — Ched :  ?  08:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey[edit]

Can the reasons be elaborated on why the handful of fastest qualifiers were not given pole position and demoted eg, needed a change of equipment after qualifiying, or illegally impeded another driver during the qualifying session.

  • The "notes" section has the mention of the "exceptions", is it something that should be formated differently {{note}}, or just expanded? Solid references prior the the mid-80's can be difficult to find, but I'm willing to try if that's what it takes. — Ched :  ?  12:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is their team not mentioned, but only the make of the car. Eg, sometimes different teams use a Ford machine? It just links to Ford atm instead of McLaren Mercedes or Williams Renault or whatever.
  • Unlike Formula 1, teams are not considered to be very important in NASCAR. The focus has always been on the driver. Back in the 1950s, many of the top drivers would hop between teams and do one oft events. Royalbroil 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd imagine the column could be added, but normally the only time "teams" gather much discussion is when 3 - 5 drivers dominate at an individual event, such as a 1-2-3 finish. For the most part, even drivers on the same team can become very competitive, and there isn't nearly as much "team work" involved in NASCAR as there is in F1 or Indy. — Ched :  ?  12:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering, are tyres important in NASCAR. In F1 there used to be some teams contracted to Michelin and Bridgestone, and the different companies had form slumps and strengths and weaknesses depending on the track. Michelin did better on circuits with slow corners, generally.
  • There have hardly ever been tire wars in NASCAR, usually only one option was available for teams. Royalbroil 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As RB says, we have comments made from time to time about the quality of the tires at a particular event, but pretty much Goodyear provides the tires, and the teams run on what is offered. — Ched :  ?  12:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a format where you can put in minimal fuel for a light car in qualifying, and then for the start of the race you put in as much as you want? Whereas in some others, if you put in 2 laps of fuel for qualifying, you will have to stop after 1 race lap, but if you put in 40 you qualify low but move up when the others pit early.
  • As far as I know, drivers have always been able to run the light fuel load for qualifying. Royalbroil 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, they used to be able to do a lot more, and the cars "qualifying trim" would be much different than their "race trim", but it has gotten to be where teams are allowed to do less and less between qualifying and races. — Ched :  ?  12:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you allowed to change the car after quali? In F1 you cannot under current regulations do anything except change the front wing angle so it is possible for a guy to predict that it will rain on race day so they set up their car for wets and do badly on a dry qualifying day and then move past on the raceday.
  • Teams used to be able to change the car after qualifying. Until about 10 years ago, teams were allowed to put in a separate qualifying engine designed to last long enough to drive the qualifying laps! They still can adjust the aerodynamics, take tape off the grill, etc. Royalbroil 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there rain in 1971? They slowed down a lot.
  • IIRC, that was the year after the winged cars (Superbirds and Daytonas) started running, and the year that RJR got involved. I know NASCAR experimented with restrictor plates in the early 70's, but I don't know if that was the cause of the decrease in speed. I'll do a little research on that. — Ched :  ?  12:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the flags the state of birth? Or where they registered their racing licence? In most international sports it is where they registered themselves, is that the case here? A lot of people don't race for their place of residence or their place of birth.
  • Flags are the hometown for the drivers. I think the drivers have some leeway to pick what place they represent. Again, the focus is on the drivers! Royalbroil 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the numbers, some people might ask for conversions for mi/km on all of them. If so use the template. If not, use nbsp manually between teh numbers nad units YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point, the conversions should be added. Royalbroil 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed decrease[edit]

  • link first time a restrictor plate is used (MI) on Aug. 16
  • link Drivers (Bobby Issac) pull out of races due to restrictor plates.

I'll do some more research in the next day or two - I'm thinking that it was a restrictor plate that slowed the speeds. I remember Bobby Issac got up over 200 mph - in one of those winged warriors, and safety was a big concern. That was many years ago when I was a whole lot younger (and OR), but I'll find something on it. — Ched :  ?  12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

found it
  • OK - got a paragraph written up to explain the speed decrease in 1971, RB and I have sorted out the refs for it, and polished up the wording. Hopefully that will explain the questions that may arise about the speed decrease. — Ched :  ?  19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial[edit]

Note that the majority of these comments are points I think could be a problem at FLC, not necessarily problems I had reading the article. I'm not really up to scratch on on the Featured List criteria, so this can only be a prose review. I will, however, take a look at the sources if I have time. Feel free to break up my comments with replies, that always seems easier to manage than all the replies at the end.

Lead
  • Maybe link "qualifying" to the terminology list.  Done
  • "The term "Pole position" was originally coined in the American horse racing industry". Should "Pole position" begin with a capital here?  Done
  • "...which constituted the inside barrier of the course the contestants navigated." Maybe.  Done and tweaked
  • Actually, that whole sentence seems a little out of place, probably more appropriate to the pole position article. Is there any particular reason for its inclusion?  Done - I tweaked it a bit, but left the concept since we are talking about "pole position" here. — Ched :  ?  19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An additional 33 to 35 of berths in the Daytona 500 are determined by the results of two qualifying races, and the position of the driver in the points rankings from the previous year." The comma after "two qualifying races" is also redundant.  Done
  • "...which is a speed of 210.364 miles per hour (338.548 km/h)." An average speed?  Done
  • Would "rule" be a better word than "mandate"?  Done
  • "The accident occurred when Bobby Allison crashed at over 200 mph[4][5] into the safety barrier at Talladega Superspeedway, [6] during the Winston 500,[7] on May 3, 1987.[8]" A conversion template needs adding for "200 mph". This also seems to be getting a little off topic. Is there any way you shorten it and incorporate it into the previous sentence?
  • I added the convert, but I'm not sure how to incorporate the stand-alone sentence. — Ched :  ?  05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Depending upon the sponsor, era, or a specific year, the races were referred to as "The Duals" or "The Twins"." These are the Daytona 500 and the Winston 500?  Done tweaked to show the terms are for the "qualifying" races. — Ched :  ?  19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure
  • Gatorade Duel is overlinked.  Done
  • "Each of the two qualifying races is 150 miles long." And in kilometres?  Done
  • Budweiser should link to Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch), and you should make it clear that Anheuser Busch owns Budweiser, so those sentences make sense together.  Done
History
  • "In early years, qualifying had varying formats, from one timed lap, to the average of two laps, to the better of two laps." I reckon the first comma isn't needed, and the second could be a colon.  Done
  • "Top 20" or "top 20"?  Done
  • "At the time the green flag was thrown on February 22, 1959[18] 59 cars raced to the starting line; and the event remained under green flag conditions throughout the entire race.[19]" I reckon you could move ref 18 to the end of the sentence without any trouble, as it's a little distracting there.  Done
  • Link "green flag".  Done
  • "125 miles" needs a conversion.  Done
  • "The 12-mile-per-hour (19 km/h) reduction in speed for the 1971 qualification is a result of NASCAR's effort to limit speeds during the late 1960s and early 1970s." was, surely.  Done
  • Many sentences near the end of the paragraph could be merged or rearranged for flow, as it currently reads a little staccato.
  • {{cquote}} is discouraged per MOS:QUOTE (see under Block quotations). {{quote}} makes a good substitute.  Done
  • There's a double Uno link.  Done
  • Don't need the restrictor plate link here again.  Done
  • Ref 28 can go to the end of the sentence.  Done
Other stuff
  • A warning: at the FAC of 2008 Monaco Grand Prix the subject of flags unaccompanied by the name of the entity it describes was raised (see MOS:FLAG). I don't agree with that policy, but I can recognise very few of the flags in the table. What's the significance of having the flags?
  • That's an insane picture of Ken Schrader.
  • New criteria for FA and FL require images to have alternative text. Make sure it is included now, otherwise you will be asked at FLC.  Done
  • Per somewhere in the MOS (I can try to find it if you want) names of sources in the reference list should not be all capitals, even if that is how the source gives it. i.e., you have to rewrite it in common form.  Done
  • Ref three needs to say "NASCAR" somewhere in it (I didn't know it was the official website) - that should fill the "work" input.  Done
  • I'll take a look at the sources when I can.

Hope that helps. Apterygial 11:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help and input Apterygial, I picked off a few of the easy ones tonight, and will try to address the rest in the next few days. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got a few more — Ched :  ?  05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got a few more. (converts, alt text for photos, etc.) — Ched :  ?  16:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments II[edit]

As the original page author in Feb. 2009, I decided to stand aside during the process, and allow other editors to concentrate on the article. I have only a few suggestions at this point:

  • The table looks overreferenenced. At least in it's current column format. I suggest a column for references, if that is allowed in FL.


Year of event
 Driver
 Car make
 Average
speed
 Restrictor plate
 Notes References
1959 North Carolina Bob Welborn Chevrolet 140.121 mph (225.503 km/h) Not fastest qualifier (see below); Entire lineup set by Qualifying races [1][2][3]
  • I also suggest a "nowrap" for the drivers' name/flag column.

Doctorindy (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea. I'll check with ... sombody... and see if that's acceptable. If so I'll try to implement the change in the next couple days when time permits. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Past Daytona Pole Winners". RacingOne.com. June 23, 2009. Retrieved 2009-07-18.
  2. ^ "Past Daytona 500 Champions". CNN Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2009-06-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Aumann, Mark (January 9, 2003). "1959: Petty's photo finish". nascar.com; Turner Sports Interactive. Retrieved 2009-06-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Television coverage[edit]

I think it might be worth noting the live (and sometimes taped) television coverage of the Daytona 500 pole qualifying. ESPN I believe was the first to start covering pole qualifying. I know they did at least as early as 1994. FOX/FX or NBC/TNT started covering it live in 2001. Currently, FOX covers it live. Doctorindy (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User:Dabomb87 about the table issue, if he's unable to get time to look, I'll ask YellowMonkey in a couple days. If that fails to get a good feedback, I'll try the FLC talk page. I'll see what I can find on the TV coverage ... maybe this coming weekend. Thanks again Doc for a great article/list to work with here. I'm glad you put so much work into creating it - and I think that eventually it will be a candidate for FLC - and I'll be sure to drop you a note when it goes up. Cheers and best. ... See you at the races. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If television coverage has received mention in third-party reliable sources, discuss it, but don't give too much weight to it; this article is primarily about the winners. Also, there was a discussion about television schedules and such at WP:NOT; does that apply here (not really following that issue though)? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed that discussion a little, and it seemed to not apply to the same sort of topic. I think they came to a consensus that "historical" schedules and information should be allowed, but they didn't want very much current schedules...as if Wiki was TV Guide. Anyway, recently, they put together charts for NASCAR broadcasting networks and crews. I thought perhaps adding Daytona pole quals in a similar fashion. But on here, it would have to be mentioned in prose (paragraph form) and very brief. Doctorindy (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recap by Ched[edit]

  1. TV coverage: Haven't found anything "historical" on this, and am hesitant to add without references.
  2. Table change: Should this be done?
  3. Lead "The accident occurred when Bobby Allison crashed at over 200 mph[4][5] into the safety barrier at Talladega Superspeedway, [6] during the Winston 500,[7] on May 3, 1987.[8]" A conversion template needs adding for "200 mph". This also seems to be getting a little off topic. Is there any way you shorten it and incorporate it into the previous sentence?
  4. History Many sentences near the end of the paragraph could be merged or rearranged for flow, as it currently reads a little staccato.
  5. Other Stuff A warning: at the FAC of 2008 Monaco Grand Prix the subject of flags unaccompanied by the name of the entity it describes was raised (see MOS:FLAG). I don't agree with that policy, but I can recognize very few of the flags in the table. - What's the significance of having the flags? - (They are US State flags: should they stay?, or be removed?)
    I removed them - I don't see how they comply with WP:MOSFLAG or how the very loose association between the driver and his home state adds anything to the article. Royalbroil 02:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That's an insane picture of Ken Schrader. (Should it be removed?)
    Definitely not. I think it should be there, but it is still insane. In a good way. Apterygial 13:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Ched :  ?  12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I thing you should do, and this could take a while, is go through every source and see if you can justify its reliability (see the excellent Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for details on how to do this). Unfortunately I am a little too busy at the moment to manage it. Cheers, Apterygial 13:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, here comes a pain in the butt part. What FA people want to see is a wikilink to every reliable source that has an article. Any newspaper and magazine that's a redlink needs to get a stub article. Here's the kicker - we need to go through every source and add the wikilink at the first instance only and all of the other wikilinks need to get removed. This is the part that doesn't make sense to me; I don't understand why the second instance should be removed, because what happens when a new reference is found using this source? Do you expect some new or inexperienced contributor to know about this and fix it? It'll never happen. For web sources, you use the name of the website not the URL. So NASCAR.com should be NASCAR. Royalbroil 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK .. I'll get to work on that stuff in the next day or two .... — Ched :  ?  03:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? — Ched :  ?  03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, well done! I find this to be the most painful part of getting something Featured. I forgot about this, so thanks for the reminder, Apterygial. Royalbroil 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Never heard about that one. Did you check the reliability of the sources? Apterygial 09:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alan_Kulwicki/archive1. I'll look over the references. I didn't have time to check through all of them yet. I'll do it next... Royalbroil 00:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That issue of overlinking would apply only if you are going to link in the footnotes at all. One notable omission from the MoS is a guideline on the use of links in footnotes. I, for example, never link, no matter what, while others link authors and publishers, perhaps cities. I don't think there is a requirement to link, although I can understand if others do (some publications may not meet notability guidelines to qualify for articles, however). Apterygial 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm learning from this discussion! Thanks apterygial! Royalbroil 23:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I know the whole MoS, but I watch certain pages that point out all the little things that aren't obvious, and also from experience as a GA reviewer. Apterygial 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

(deindent) Ched, the reliability of the sources should be impeccable for featured content. It's best to build an article from major, well-known magazines and newspapers, plus books from major publishing houses. Major television networks and official sources like NASCAR or Daytona International Speedway are good too. Anything else needs to be proven. The press credentials of the author or people associated with the website can be proven to demonstrate their reliability. So Racing Reference is definitely less preferred to NASCAR.com. Here's what I think is questionable:

  1. http://bump-drafts.com/2009/04/23/the-big-one-10-notorious-talladega-crashes/ checkY Done
  2. http://www.racing-reference.info/race?id=1987-09&series=W (best replaced by official source) checkY Done
  3. http://insiderracingnews.com/Writers/KR/020809.html  Not done Need to do
  4. http://finallapradio.com/2009/02/08/daytona-500-qualifying-procedure-rules/ Would probably be considered reliable if this is a national radio network checkY Done
  5. http://nascar.about.com/od/races/a/howdaytonaquals.htm uses about.com and would be problematic, but the author has worked for ESPN and National Motorsports Press Association, so he has proven reliability checkY Done
  6. http: //racingwin.com/bud-shotout-turns-away-coors-pole-winners/ checkY Done
  7. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/season-recaps/1950s/1959-nascar.htm checkY Done
  8. http://www.examiner.com/x-543-NASCAR-Examiner~y2009m2d12-Duel-Double-Daytona-500-Qualifying-Races-Make-Or-Break-For-Many-NASCAR-Teams Name should be the Examiner, not Clarity Digital Group LLC checkY Done
  9. http://www.allleftturns.com/top-10-nascar-one-hit-wonders checkY Done
  10. http://aerowarriors.com/naw.html checkY Done I hated having to do it, but I removed this ref, and reworded to reflect the more reliable sources we have at this time.
  11. http://www.orato.com/sports/nascar-restrictor-plate-races-daytona checkY Done
  12. http://www.racing-reference.info/twin125.htm Racing Reference checkY Done
  13. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/nascar-basics/nascar-safety4.htm checkY Done
  14. http://nascar.about.com/od/nascar101/a/nascarqualify.htm Steve McCormick again, good enough checkY Done
  15. http://www.racingone.com/article.aspx?artnum=50156 (Probably could be found at nascar.com) checkY Done
    Owned by International Speedway Corporation per http://corporate.racingone.com/
  16. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/season-recaps/1960s/1961-nascar.htm checkY Done
  17. http://www.race2win.net/wc/drivers/07/21.html checkY Done
  18. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/season-recaps/1980s/1983-nascar.htm checkY Done

If content is found in a better source I am quite pleased to see so many solid references like espn, turner, la times, etc. Royalbroil 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RB. I've also started looking at these at: this section of my race sandbox. I think I can make a viable case for racing-reference.info, and was planning to start an article on them so it wouldn't be a redlink. Basically, sites like nascar.com, and ESPN are now using their data to populate their own articles, so I think we may be able to use it in the end, even though it's not as well known as other sites. I did notice that several of the refs I dug up were actually Word Press pages, hence "a blog" - so I'll do my best to find suitable replacements. I've also dug up enough references for American Auto Racing Writers & Broadcasters Association that I believe I can build a viable article for them as well. The merger of HowStuffWorks and Consumer Guide may be a selling point, but I'll look a little deeper. We do have an article on HowStuffWorks that is referenced - if that is any help.
I'm not quite ready to give up yet, but it may take me a few more weeks to build these latest points into acceptability. I'll keep plugging away, but may work on other things as well during this time. I have at least a dozen DYK things I've been building on in text files on my HD and in sandboxes, and realize that perhaps I'm not up to this level (FLC) quite yet. FA writer David Fuchs has agreed to help me on another project, so perhaps I can learn a bit more from him as well. Sorry if it sounds as though I'm a bit discouraged, but at times I feel as though I'm chasing the proverbial carrot here. I guess when I look back at the start, I should take comfort in how far it's come. Perhaps in the end I'll be able to work up more articles from the NASCAR project up to GA and FA status, and I guess that's the main objective. Sigh ... I'll keep trying. — Ched :  ?  01:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • per conversation with RB I've reformatted the list to numbers rather than bullets. Also, I think we can make a case for racing-reference.info being a quality ref due to the fact that both ESPN (link) and nascar.com (link) consider them as a reliable source. Also, I found this book which I think might fill in a couple gaps as well. — Ched :  ?  05:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a couple more looked at, one was already removed, and I removed the aerowarriors ref. Reworded to reflect the better refs. I searched for several hours last night, and again this morning - and I do believe that safety was also a concern for the rule changes in 1971, but until I can use a better ref, I removed it for now. I did see a book during my search that might have it, and if it's not too expensive, I may purchase it down the road. I'm also looking into the HowStuffWorks quality as well. — Ched :  ?  14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent several hours trying to find anything reliable that talks about Michigan being the first track or a test track for restrictor plates in 1971 and I can't come up with anything. I don't see it in the poorer reference. Check out that article, it uses Wikipedia as a source. I'm sure it wouldn't pass WP:RS. Royalbroil 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added this ref, which has the qualifying races winners from 1972 to 2007. Royalbroil 13:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling pretty good about the sources now. With the about.com article, we can prove that Steve McCormick has worked for major publications so we are good with him. The only source that I'm worried about is How Stuff Works. Jayski is used by nascar.com and they recommended him. See, I told you we'll work it out! Now you know to use just the highest quality references in your work - it saves SOOOO much time and headaches. The next featured/good content that you work on will be a completely different experience - take it from someone who knows! You can see how much you have grown from this experience and why it's such a big deal when someone has at least one GA/FA at RFAs. Royalbroil 00:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that part of that is directed toward me. To be honest, I'm not sure where we are on this at the moment. 3 months, and hours I could not even begin to count searching for sources and such - and I'm not really sure where we are on this. I've only gone through 2 GA things, and this is the first FLC, and much of it is FA stuff due to the extensive prose. I'm happy to help, and I'm doing my best, but sometimes I'm not sure how close we are. No doubt that I've learned a lot, and I'm grateful for that knowledge. I thank you one and all. What needs done next? — Ched :  ?  02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it was directed to you. We just need to figure out if "How Stuff Works" is a reliable source. Then I need to go through everything one final time with a fine tooth comb (I invite you to as well). Then it's time to propose! You've done a great job! So we're very close. Royalbroil 12:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be a lot easier doing similar articles now you've done this, though. Because once you know what sources you can use before you start building the article, you build the article to the strength of the sources. Trying to find sources to match what you want to say is a lot harder. Apterygial 12:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • got another one backed up w/racing-reference.info and nascar.com this am. also ran across a ref that didn't support the content, removed that and found one at nascar.com. Will go through the list above later and mark off which ones (they were HSW refs IIRC). Per conservation with RB, racing-reference.info should be a good ref: Used by nascar.com (link), and promoted by ESPN writer Marty Smith (link). — Ched :  ?  19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that's left is Insider Racing News. I cleaned the references to remove overly-detailed information about who owns who, like removing Turner Sports Interactive from NASCAR's official website. You're supposed to list the common name for websites - so cite NASCAR instead of nascar.com or NASCAR; Turner Sports Interactive. Royalbroil 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent about 2-3 hours last night looking for a replacement source for the Insider Racing News, and I got nowhere. Have you been able to find anything, Ched? We might just have to remove the content and move on. I remember someone telling me about a website that searches for content in major newspapers, was that you? It's a big race watching weekend for me, so I doubt you'll see me in here much. Royalbroil 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and I looked for a couple hours too. I just noticed your "newspaper search" idea! ... left you a link, and I'll check that angle when I get back today. GREAT thinking! — Ched :  ?  11:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insider Racing News:[edit]

Reviewing this info: (note:, I think it's reference [14] now that I added some other refs for expansion)

  1. Since 2003, it has been held on the Sunday before the Daytona 500. Prior to that, it was held the Saturday before, and prior to the 1980s, the Wednesday before the Daytona 500.[12] (now removed, Ched).
  2. The top 20 finishers from each qualifying race made the final Daytona 500 field.[12] (removed, Ched)
  3. On the day before the 500, they also had a "last chance" race, and more drivers were added to the starting field based on performance in the event.[12]

I removed the second one, since it didn't really add anything major to the article. The first and third I'm still trying to find better references for, but if I can't find anything soon - I guess we'll just have to do without the info. I did find this old 1991 newspaper article which may do for a shortened up (edited) number 1. What do you guys think? I've found a couple things that support a "last chance" race in 1959, but nothing that says any of the drivers got promoted to the main event.

I also added some info for the past champion's provisional, and info for the top 35 drivers having spots saved for them. I just bought the 10th edition of NASCAR for Dummies, but the info is basically from 2000, so I tried to keep it generic. If I can't find information on the '59 last chance race, I'll remove that info by mid-week. Let me know about the pole day stuff - is it important what "day" the first qualifying takes place? Thx, — Ched :  ?  03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the day of the week is needed because it's too trivial. I think we should dump them all. I do notice that the 1991 reference article talks about second and third round of qualifying, which could be useful to this article. Back before the Top 35 had locked spots, there was a routine for who takes the final spots outside the Top 30 (15 cars from each qualifying race), a few based on qualifying speed but fell outside the Top 30, a few on postmark date of the entry, plus the past champion's provisional in 43rd. But this is not an article on the exact procedure to determine the field for the Daytona 500, so I think it's too far off topic. Royalbroil 04:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... I removed the first one too. Are you saying that I should also remove the provisional champion info from the article? — Ched :  ?  04:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are a couple paragraphs from the "NASCAR for Dummies" book in the Second-round qualifying section that gives some info, I'll add if you think I should. I've seen several newspaper articles on "third-round qualifying", and might be able to find them again if you think it's important. — Ched :  ?  05:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check me[edit]

OK ... I'm at another "end-point" here. I did end up purchasing the NASCAR for Dummies book because it had a sizable chapter on NASCAR qualifying. I ended up doing some researching, and have added things that weren't there before.

  1. I removed all the stuff from the thread above since we couldn't find a good high quality reference for the 1959 event.
  2. I added information about the provisional champions since it can/has had an impact on the starting field. Per discussion above with RB, if it's a little too heavy on the WP:UNDUE end, feel free to trim it.
  3. I added info on the "Second-round qualifying" from the book - it is relevant, if it needs expansion or changes - let me know.
  4. I added information about the rescheduling of next years qualifying since it was in the news in plenty of places. (Fox, ABC, UPI, AP, etc.).

I ran everything through a grammar check again, but you folks may want to have a gander at the changes, and see what you think. I'm good to go here - but have no objections to anyone editing anything that makes it all a better thing in the end. So what's next? — Ched :  ?  02:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information about how the field is formed for the race does seem a bit out of place in this article, but it's somewhat on topic. I won't get upset either way. The second round qualifying is needed because there were some years where the second round qualifier had a higher speed than the pole qualifier. So I'm okay with the content (in general). Now I need to spend the time to run through the article with a fine toothed comb. I'm going to pretend that I've never read the article before. I'll check for the quality of the references, the quality of the prose, etc. One of the requirements for GA is having stability. So after we are all done with the article and totally satisfied with the article, we should wait at least a week or 2 for anyone to make changes. Then one of us can propose it for FL. I watched another FL candidate as a learning process. I think we're sitting good once we finish up this final step. I'll let you know when I'm done - I suspect you'll see my edits to the article to put the polish on the prose. Royalbroil 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the clarifications made by RB. I did a read through today, with a couple very minor changes in syntax, grammar, etc. I've basically done all I'm able to do with respect to the items requested as listed above. Let me know if, and/or, when you want to submit this to any process (FLC), and I'll be happy to follow along, or attempt to address any questions asked - or address suggestions for improvement. If you want me to submit it after a couple weeks of idle time, I'd be happy to do that as well. — Ched :  ?  15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Daytona 500 pole position winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Daytona 500 pole position winners. 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:

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) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of Daytona 500 pole position winners. 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:

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) 02:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Daytona_500_pole_position_winners&oldid=1198306235"