Talk:International Speedway Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	International Speedway Corporation has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	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. To view recent changes to the project's articles, please check out the related changes page.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] GAReview

I can tell you first off that the lead should probably be improved a bit, and I'd like to see some references in it. I'll give it a more detailed overview later. --Wizardman 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I took out a sentence that I felt wasn't that great and added some references. I'm sure you'd like it expanded a bit, but I'm just worried if I go into too much detail about anything else (which is just about all bad: lawsuits, people protesting track construction, criticism of the racing at the tracks themselves) it'll look too POV against them. Otherwise, I'll just wait for your detailed review. Recury 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I gave it a nice read. Let's see if it follows the guidelines:

• It is well written? Well, as I said, I'd like a longer lead (1 sentence?), but I understand what you're saying. a lead's really just meant to summarize, so if it's redundant it's okay. I'd like to see the history section expanded a bit, but again not sure how hard that would be. As for prose and structure, that's all good.
• It is factually accurate and verifiable? Yup, many references.
• It is broad in its coverage? Broad, but maybe not comphrehensive. That's a FA requirement though so you're fine for now.
• It follows the neutral point of view policy? Yes it does.
• It is stable? You're pretty much the only editor the past 50 edits, so it definitely is.
• It contains images? Sure, 1 or 2 more would be nice, but for now this is good.

And there's my more detailed review.--Wizardman 16:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on the History section a bit and maybe from that I can find something I can put in the lead. Recury 17:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think the lead is better now and I've expanded the history section to include more on the merger with Penske and the reasoning behind a lot of their moves. Recury 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)