Talk:NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series at Watkins Glen

Did you know nomination

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 Edge3 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the 1997 Bully Hill Vineyards 150, Ron Fellows became the first Canadian driver to win a NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series race?

• Reviewed: Trinidad euphonia

Created by ZappaOMatic (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 01:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

• The article and hook are fine, but the nomination unfortunately came too late. The article was created on 2 January and the nomination on 14 January, which is beyond the allowed period of seven days. I'm sorry, but despite the good work it's not eligible for DYK. Ffranc (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Ffranc: Please see supplimentary rule D9? The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll leave the decision to the person who closes the nomination then. I've looked at the article and everything in it looks good. The hook is short, interesting, supported by the article, cited etc. The only problem is that the nomination should have come a week earlier. If that's OK, then it should be promoted. Otherwise it should be rejected. Ffranc (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Coming here merely to comment and not to approve/reject the nomination, but in practice D9 is almost never invoked these days anymore, except for hours-to-one day misses or nominations by new editors (and even then it's usually cited to IAR and not D9). As long as the article has no other issues there is nevertheless still a chance that the nomination will be allowed (more likely under IAR as opposed to D9 specifically), but given that editors on WT:DYK tend to act as if DYK is perpetually backlogged I'm not really sure what to do here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• With 222 nominations, D9 doesn't fit; there is a large backlog of hooks at the moment. Five days late (and no chance at a 5x expansion) is more likely to get IAR if it's a new nominator, though it's been since early 2018 since The Bushranger last nominated here, so IAR may be appropriate. I'll let the eventual reviewer decide. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I guess things changed over time; when I was DYKing regularly some years back the general standard was "as long as it's more recent than the oldest unreviewed hooks in the queue, it's A-OK". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

One possible way to get around the nomination date issues would be to bring the article to GA status and treat the article as a newly-promoted GA if/when that happens. @The Bushranger: Do you think you will be able to bring the article to GA status within a reasonable timeframe? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Alas, the answer to that with the brain-space I have available is 'almost certainly not'.Actually, having looked at the article, it's not that far off I think, so...I may take a stab at this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we should put the nomination on hold at least until the GA review has been accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Naruto asked me to take a look at the GAN, which I will do - to avoid this being open indefinately. Might I suggest the hook is a bit weak? The first Canadian winner is a "so what?" Situation to me. There is a bit about the winner having nearly not had a garage booked due to being a late selection which is much better in my eyes. Of course this does all ride on the GAN passing. Specifically this bit "he did so in his third career start and for a team that did not reserve a garage space as the entry had been hastily arranged" - Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: The last couple of days have been really busy - I'll try to get to the GAN tonight or tomorrow night at the latest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5: Article is now at GA. Suggested ALT1 below. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that in the 1997 Bully Hill Vineyards 150, Ron Fellows, driving for a team that didn't have a garage space, became the first Canadian to win a NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series race?

@Ffranc: Will you be able to give this a second review? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK, this should count as new enough, because it can either be said to have been nominated immediately after or more than a month before becoming a GA. The article is long enough obviously, it looks neutral, everything is cited and I've found no copyright issues. I think the original hook is OK, but ALT1 adds some drama and stays within 200 characters. Both hooks are properly cited in the article. QPQ was done last month. With the original issue solved by bringing the article to GA, it should be good to go. Ffranc (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bully Hill Vineyards 150/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (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 may 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 ^{(talk • contribs)}

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

• Lede needs some major work, it's very short, and doesn't really cover the subject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • How does it look now? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Watkins Glen 175 is a NASCAR Camping World Truck Series at Watkins Glen International. - the lede sentence should get across exactly what the subject is. This makes no sense without clicking both links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This should be better now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is the article about the Watkins Glen 175 or the Bully Hill Vineyards 150? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Both; the last established name was "Bully Hill Vineyards 150", and it's been tweaked to reflect that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• From 1996 to 2000, it was run as a 62-lap, 150-mile race. The 2021 race will be the first as a 175-mile race. - generally I'd expect some information about how the first race was created, a little about the winners, something about why it wasn't held for 20 years etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any informaton on why it was left off the schedule, beyond "NASCAR thought the fans didn't want road races", which I'm not sure can be RS-ed. Some has been added here; I'll see if I can't poke at some more in the morning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• The race is one of four road courses on the 2021 Truck Series schedule along with the Daytona International Speedway, Circuit of the Americas, and Canadian Tire Motorsport Park. - this is an article on all the races, so this makes no sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite grokking what the issue is here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, the 2021 race is part of the 2021 Truck Series, but not the race in general. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

General

• Could I get you to make the table fit WP:DTT? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hm, I'm not sure what needs to be done here, but I'll see if I can get to that in the morning when I'm less tired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Some WP:ALT text for the screen reader folk? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done for the images. The infobox doesn't appear to have an alttext parameter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• The article needs to really cover what it is first, a little explanation that it's a motor race it's for NASCAR cars and where it fits in the calendar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the lede might cover that now?
    • We'll also need it in the body. The lede is a summary of the text below, as such it should be readable without the summary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• How is the race 75 laps, when all the races haven't been at that length? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 72 laps; the infobox shows the Current length. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose the thing I'm getting at is that we need to cover all of the races, as this is an article on the series, and not an article on the race that is happening this year. So, it should include the race lengths of all of the races. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Otherwise, this just needs a copyedit as the rest of the prose looks fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked a few things, I'll give it another pass in the morning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this! I have a busy evening coming up but I'll see what I can do to address the issues, if @ZappaOMatic: doesn't beat me to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Sorry for the delay, it's been a tough week. I'll see if I can't start knocking this out tonight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Bushranger - could you maybe make the infobox reflect that we are talking about a series of races, and not just the singular race, and I think there is enough here for a promotion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: So sorry for the delay on this; my brain has been taking a beating this February. I've made a few tweaks per the above, and added a note that the length listed is for 2021 - the "previous names" section should be clear it's referring to the event as a whole I think. Let me know if anything else is needed! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)