Talk:NASCAR: Edwards wins 2010 Kobalt Tools 500

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Review of revision 1130030 [Passed][edit]

Clueless to the last, I'm still scratching my head over this sentence:

This is the closest that the top three in points have been since the Chase format was introduced.

Now, one of the sources has in its title "tightest Chase ever", but I'm still not seeing anything in that source that explains what "tightest" means. What am I missing? --Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It means closest in America, such as tight, the protons in an atom were very tight, (close). I am 100.99% it means close, or thats what meant because it is, 46 points seperate the top three! Nascar1996 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But how do we know it's the top three that are the closest ever, rather than, say (as an obvious alternative), the top two? --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Both are. Nascar1996 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering how we know that. --Pi zero (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I know pretty much anything about NASCAR, if you want to know something, just ask. Nascar1996 00:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I rather imagine you do :-). But that is not what I mean. I'm wondering whether that information can be extracted from the declared sources, and if so, from where in them. --Pi zero (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think tight means? Nascar1996 03:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It is an imprecise term, and ambiguous in this context. The sentence I'm asking about asserts something precise and unambiguous. So that single word is not in itself verification of the elaborate content of that sentence. If the statement is unsourced, we need to either source it (one way or another), or —unpalatably— remove it. --Pi zero (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pi zero's original comment on Nascar's user talk page was that xe couldn't verify only a few specific things. I've carried forward xe's verification and concentrated on the remaining elements. Therefore, while I have done a few checks outside of those, I have largely not rigoroisly duplicated the effort Pi had already put in. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I see. And on that user talk page, in my list of things I was having trouble verifying, I said I was "really lost" in regard to the championships, rather than being more specific (ah, 20/20 hindsight). In fact, this sentence was one of the things about the championships I was having trouble with. Nascar subsequently added further sources and suggested to me that we try again, which I did when I was next on-wiki; this sentence was the only passage I still couldn't verify, if not for which I might have published a few minutes ahead of when BRS did. In the long run, perhaps a useful case study in the challenges of multi-reviewer collaboration.
Meanwhile, though, we need to figure out what to do with this passage, while we're still within 24 hours after publication. --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
An obvious measure is to —perhaps temporarily— make the statement slightly gentler, so that it's clearly within the sources, and then if we can arrange something more within the 24-hour horizon, all the better. --Pi zero (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Sighted. I feel we've lost very little with that edit (if I'd had more time this morning I was thinking along the lines '...making this the closest...' which is pretty similar). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)