2010 TUMS Fast Relief 500 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 3, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

NASCAR Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Contribute to the project: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See all here Assess : See all here Cleanup : Days of Thunder, Rusty Wallace, NASCAR Thunder 2003, Bill Weber, Wood Brothers Racing, Amber Cope Copyedit : NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt, 2010 Aaron's 499, Mark Martin Expand : Road course ringer, BAM Racing, Greg Erwin, Donnie Wingo, 2008 Daytona 500, 1991 Daytona 500, Ken Schrader Racing, Win-Tron Racing, Venturini Motorsports Maintain : 2024 NASCAR Cup Series, 2024 NASCAR Xfinity Series, 2024 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, 2024 ARCA Menards Series, 2024 ARCA Menards Series East, 2024 ARCA Menards Series West, , List of female NASCAR drivers NPOV : Criticism of NASCAR, RahMoc Enterprises, Mara Reyes, NAPA Auto Parts 200, NASCAR Kinetics Photo : see all here Stubs : See all here Update : 2025 NASCAR Cup Series, 2025 NASCAR Xfinity Series, 2025 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series, 2025 ARCA Menards Series Verify : NASCAR rules and regulations, 2008 Dickies 500, Frank Cicci Racing, Scott Lagasse Jr. Other : More Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 TUMS Fast Relief 500. 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/

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) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 TUMS Fast Relief 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 08:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this looks like a wonderfully written article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!

1. Is it 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. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it 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. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• "during the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season" season seems redundant here.

** Done . Kpgjhpjm  04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate links should be removed per WP:Duplink. You could try this tool to remove such links in mere seconds!

Let me know if you need any help with removing duplinks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "brakes" need not be linked (WP:Overlinking).
  •  Done . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• " Mark Martin finished second and Kevin Harvick, who started thirty-sixth, came third" As the team name for the winner is mentioned, it would be consistent to mention the team names for the second and third as well.
  •  Done . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tony Stewart with 5,666 points, was twenty-three points ahead of Carl Edwards and Greg Biffle with 5,618 points was twelve ahead of Kurt Busch, and fourteen in front of Jeff Burton" Here, although I am able to guess the positions of these drivers, it would still be better to mention them explicitly.
• Partially done . That makes the sentence lose its flow when reading . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Three practice sessions were held before the Saturday race—one on Friday and two on Saturday." Are you able to find the dates?
  •  Not done That's redundant. No other articles have that. Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bowyer, David Ragan, A. J. Allmendinger, Gordon, and Joey Logano rounded out the ten drivers who were quickest in the session" Is it in that order? If so, it would be better to mention that. Same here: "Burton, Jamie McMurray, Bobby Labonte, Ragan, and Johnson followed in the top ten"
  •  Done . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "forty-eight cars were entered but only forty-three was able because of NASCAR's qualifying procedure" This is unclear. Forty-three were able of what? Also, it would be better to mention the qualifying procedure.
  •  Done . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " time of 19.518" and "time of 19.799" units?
  •  Done . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "while Dennis Setzer withdrew from qualifying" Are you able to find out why he withdrew? If so, it would be better to mention the reason.
  •  Not done No sources found . Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kpgjhpjm Let me know if there is any sort of help that you would need from me! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: All your concerns have been addressed except the duplinks. Kpgjhpjm 04:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kpgjhpjm let me know if you would need help with the duplinks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adityavagarwal, you may want to conclude the review. --MrClog (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrClog The duplicate links issue was unsolved, which I have done now. Kpgjhpjm The article now looks really nice and good to go for a GA status. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]