Talk:2015 Coca-Cola 600

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Coca-Cola 600 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2015 Coca-Cola 600 was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 12, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

NASCAR Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject NASCAR, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to NASCAR. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.NASCARWikipedia:WikiProject NASCARTemplate:WikiProject NASCARNASCAR articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Coca-Cola 600/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 09:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Not checked

2. Verifiable?:

As noted in more detail at Talk:2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500/GA1, this article is one of a number nominated by this user that are poorly referenced. The majority of the information presented body of the article is completely lacking inline citations, which are a key part of Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. Without those it is impossible to tell which parts of the article are backed up by which sources, and as such, impossible to tell whether there is any original research.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Not checked

4. Neutral point of view?:

Not checked

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?:

Not checked

Unfortunately, although it feels a bit heavy handed, I think the best action for the moment is to quick-fail all of the open nominations, as they fall so far short of our referencing requirements.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Harrias ^talk 09:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]