Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-16/WikiProject report

Discuss this story

Nice report, however, I'm missing the images. ℳono 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a pile of Nascar articles at GAN recently and the content generally seemed very much on the skinny side, in comparison to the analysis of various technical issues on analogous F1 race GAs. Some of these have had their GAs revoked although some of these seem to have been quick-revoked because of the reviewer being a banned reincarnation rather than any explicit problems that were missed. For example there is no discussion of whether certain cars are suited to certain tracks (maybe the cars/tracks are all the same) and some have no background section or just list the points standing; some teams may have done upgrades between races, for instance, as always happens in F1 YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are, sadly, no NASCAR Featured pictures. Yellowmonkey draws an interesting note above. ResMar 02:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review to most up to date NASCAR race articles such as 2010 Carfax 400. Also, all the cars are the same for every race track, except on ovals over 2.5 mile long, then they add a restrictor plate to slow them down. --Nascar 1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowmonkey, all of the cars are identical by rule and are tested with templates to certain tolerances. You can read about the vehicle at Car of Tomorrow. I wonder if some of the photos that I took at a NASCAR Nationwide race are up to Featured level [1]. Some of them are close in my opinion. Royal broil 03:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, that explains things being very generic YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]