Jump to content

Talk:2018 24 Hours of Daytona/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Yes, but why?

Seems we are inserting information which isn't really relevant unless we explain it to readers. To illustrate I have broken down just one paragraph here (in green) with comments.

The week before the official three-day test session at the circuit, IMSA altered the balance of performance in all three categories.

What does that mean? If it means it amended specs to create equal playing fields in class/es, then we should explain that.

All classes had their maximum revolutions per minute (rpm) defined by IMSA.

OK, but to what? Higher than last year? Lower? Different for various classes/engines?

10 kg (22 lb) of weight was added to the Cadillac DPi-V.Rs compared to 2017 with its air restrictor increased by 1.8 mm (0.071 in).

Why?

The duo of Nissan Onroak DPis and the two Acura ARX-05s had their weight increased to 940 kg (2,070 lb), 10 kg (22 lb) more than the global-specification LMP2 chassis and the pair of Mazda RT24-Ps.

There has to be a reason for that. Why?

The Nissan and Mazda engines were not altered

Suggesting that others were. And why?

but IMSA changed the aerodynamic packages on some Prototypes.

Why? And why only some prototypes had changes?

The debuting BMW M8 GTE's weight was established at 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) and its turbocharger boost curve was revised over its predecessor.

As it was on debut, what was its predecessor? Was its weight established higher or lower than others in class? Or the same?

The Mercedes-AMG GTD car had its air restrictor enlarged by 1 mm (0.039 in).

Why, and why such a minimal amount?

It seems to me we are adding stuff just because we can, padding really, without explaining the significance/relevance of it. It it is too difficult to explain each point in the paragraph, maybe it shouldn't exist at all. Also, there is a single ref at the end of the paragraph. Don't know whether or not it supports the whole paragraph, because it's in German.Moriori (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 24 Hours of Daytona/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Prose

Lede

General

Additional comments

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by MWright96 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough (GA on 15 December), long enough (37,990), NPOV, no obvious copyvio/ close paraphrasing / plagiarism, and effective use of inline citations. I personally would support ALT0 as it's the most interesting of the bunch, it is verified by reference, short enough. Adequate QPQ provided. Good to go. Cowlibob (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)