# Talk:2010 Price Chopper 400

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Price Chopper 400/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: KnowIG (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Disambigous pages Transmission.

 Done Nascar1996  16:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Note I would like to review this article but please bare with me as I have limited access to the internet due to people not paying money for bills. Should be sorted next week. :) KnowIG (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Right anything with a no by it see what I've written at the end of the review
Quick Fail
1.The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. 
2.The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 
3.There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed}, clarifyme, or similar tags. 
4.The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. 
5.The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. 
Review
1.Well-written: 
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct 
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2.Factually accurate and verifiable: 
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; 
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; 
(c) it contains no original research.
3.Broad in its coverage: 
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic  
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 
6.Illustrated, if possible, by images: 
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  Although copyright status has changed on 2 of the picture since upload, for anyone who is confused by licence.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 
"300 lap race was the twenty-ninth in the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, as well as the third race in the ten-race Chase for the Sprint Cup, which ends the season." Series. The race was also the third event in the ten round Chase for the Sprint Cup competititon , which would concluded the 2010 season.

 Done Nascar1996  20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Some of the Chase for the Sprint Cup participants, such as, Johnson and Harvick were not in the top-ten for most of the race, but halfway through the race all of them moved forward. Think this bit is rather probmatic. I will have a think and come back with a suggestion.Solution. Drop the championship stuff as this article is for anyone who wants to know about the race. We may not be a Nascar nut nor American. The championship confuses people, especially when you say some then only mention 2, and it's 2 drivers who's significance is not noted to be fair. Just write Johnson and Harvick who ended up on the podium were not in the top ten for the first half of the race. Clarity and non confusing. You can always add a bit more to the champ paragraph.

Point standings are very notable on the article, and it is the only way you can give it (part of coverage). Also I used them two because they were closer to the first position in the point standings. I will just remove the sentence.  Nascar1996 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
here were five cautions and twenty lead changes among twelve different drivers throughout the course of the race. It was Greg Biffle's second win in the 2010 season, and the sixteenth of his career. The result moved Biffle up to eighth in the Drivers' Championship, eighty-five points behind Jimmie Johnson and sixteen ahead of Jeff Burton. Chevrolet maintained its lead in the Manufacturers' Championship, thirty-seven ahead of Toyota and seventy-seven ahead of Ford, with seven races remaining in the season. A total of 100,000 people attended the race, while 5.25 million watched it on television. Clarify which championship you're talking about. Are you talking about the sprint cup or the chase for the sprint cup, or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Or is it the same thing which I don't think is explained very well on wiki. Also reference needed for viewership and attendence, if not remove

I understand your concern (You must be not that knowlegeable in NASCAR.) The Chase for the Sprint Cup begins after thirty races, and includes the first twelve positions in the Drivers' Championship, while the rest are not in it. Which means how I wrote it is correct. The drivers in the Chase for the Sprint Cup are able to win the championship while 13 back is not. Last, television adn attendence are supported by references in the post-race section. Nascar1996  20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok but I think you need to have unity in what you're calling it.
The track, Kansas Speedway, is one of ten intermediate to hold NASCAR races, the others being Atlanta Motor Speedway, Charlotte Motor Speedway, Chicagoland Speedway, Darlington Raceway, Homestead Miami Speedway, New Hampshire Motor Speedway, Kentucky Speedway, Las Vegas Motor Speedway, and Texas Motor Speedway. Remove track and commer. One of ten intermediate race tracks to hold Nascar races. Remove the list of tracks.

 Done Nascar1996 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You list 12 drivers in the championship is this significant? I would have thought that the top ten was more appropiate.

The 12 drivers that are in the Chase are very significant. It would be the top-ten, but where the first twelve have the ability to win the championship they are also notable, not just the first ten. Nascar1996  20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, makes sense.
rival Toyota. Ford, with 126 points, was thirteen points ahead of Dodge in the battle for third.[8] Tony Stewart was the race's defending champion.[9] Remove rival. And scrub last sentence and write, Tony Stewart had won the 2009 race, as he is technically not defending a title so to speak.

 Done the first part. The second part is correct. He was defending his win last year. Once you respond again I will see if you disagree (which if you do I WILL change it.) Nascar1996  20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Still thinking about that one.
minutes. The third and final session lasted 60 minutes. Make it into one sentence.

 Done Nascar1996 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Afterward, during qualifying, forty-six cars were entered, but only forty-three was able because of. remove afterward start during. But only forty three would qualify because of....

 Done ~NerdyScienceDude 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Harvick, one of the drivers in the Chase for the Sprint Cup, qualified twenty-fourth, while Carl Edwards was scored thirty-first. Why is Carl Edwards significant from looking at it yes notable in the champ but hardly up there in terms of the overall title and certainly didn't feature in the race. Is he the defending series champ

No, Johnson is. Would you prefer me to remove the sentence? Nascar1996 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
qualify for the race was. Were

 Done ~NerdyScienceDude 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
session, ahead of Jeff Gordon. Is full name really needed when he has been mentioned several times already. Same for several unlinked drivers who are already mentioned earlier.

 Done Nascar1996 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
spun sideways coming to the finish line, but didn't receive much damage. recieved minor damage

 Done Nascar1996 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Martin or Johnson sustained major damages to their race cars during the accidents. I would remove this and the sentence highlighted above cause accidents happen all the time, and unless major damage is caused making it notable it's not worth mentioning.

Are you sure? These were pretty much the only accidents during practice and qualifying. Nascar1996 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a bit weird then considering how much crash action happens on an oval.
Righty to the race section
Don't see too much wrong probably and over use of full name when sirname would do, see if you can cut that down.

 Done Nascar1996 18:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Gordon's lead of 3.4 seconds was reduced to nothing once the caution
Write Gordan had a lead of 3.4 secs when a caution was shown because JPM

 Done Nascar1996 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
given because Kyle Busch collided into David Reutimann,
given as Busch collided with David. Or given as Busch crashed into.
Your choice.

 Done Nascar1996 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
im to spin sideways and collided into the SAFER barrier
Him to spin into the barrier(or SAFER barrier if you like)

 Done Nascar1996 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Post race is Ok but I'll let you do the changes and then have another poke around with the race section KnowIG (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok race section looks a lot better I'll give it another once over later then I think we'll be good to go. KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep it looks good enough for GA. I've made on alteration, this here race—one purely cause its going to annoy me if I ask you to do it when I can do it myself. Passed

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Price Chopper 400. 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/20101012082703/http://www.nascar.com/races/tracks/ to http://www.nascar.com/races/tracks/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nascar.com/2010/news/headlines/cup/10/03/gbiffle-wins-cup-kansas-chase/index.html
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) 23:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)