Talk:Tim Richmond/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is well written and well referenced and all together good work. I found a few little nit picks: Comments

• Because Richmond grew up in a well-to-do family, and was sometimes treated differently by his classmates because of that background, ... (Two "becauses" - needs rewording)
  •  Done

• When Richmond reached the age of 16, his parents purchased a Pontiac Trans Am, a speedboat and a Piper Cherokee airplane for his son on the occasion. (His parents purchases for his son needs rewording.)
  •  Done

• The next season, Al Richmond bought a SuperModified, which was better suited to Richmond's driving style, and he became the track's 1977 Rookie of the Year, as well as the class track champion at Sandusky Speedway. (... clarify the Richmonds, if possible. It may not be as I fiddled unsuccessfully with the wording.)
  •  Done

• "Death" section - I don't know why this throws me off each time I read it. The fact that the heading is "Death" and it starts out with a get well cards seems comfusing because the get well card has nothing to do with his death.
  •  Done Section renamed

• "Controversy" over falsified drug tests - This is just a little confusing. Probably if I read it through again I will understand. As I understand it, NASCAR falsified a drug test showing Ricmond had drugs in his system when that was not true? Is there a reason why they would do that?
  • NASCAR at that time had a very conservative, southern US fan-base. Many folks believe that NASCAR officials did not approve of Richmond's life style which included an active sex life - at the time, HIV and AIDS were considered to be limited to the gay community, and NASCAR did not want a perceived stigma tied to their sport. All OR of course, so I'll let Royalbroil clarify in the article. — Ched :  ?  03:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, very well presented. Other than the few things I mentioned, I see no problems. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns, except the last point. I can come up with original research and opinions. I was careful to use quotes from reliable sources and named the source for each statement since it is so controversial. It's hard to say exactly what happened - did NASCAR falsify the report? Lot's of people believe they did. There are theories about why they would do this. One was because he wasn't one of the "Good Ole Boys". Others say because they wanted to cover up that a major driver had AIDS, which was considered a homosexual disease at the time. I feel a short section on the controversy is all that should exist, and what exists should only include information from very reliable sources. Royalbroil 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, User:Ched Davis edit conflicted with me for most of these changes. He did a good job with addressing these concerns. Royalbroil 04:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree with your reasoning of not implying more than the facts present. However, you have the quote: "There he was in victory lane with the team all around him and beauty queens hanging all over him. It was important for the people at the hospital to see Tim the way he really was, when he was healthy and handsome and vital, not the way he was when he was as they saw him every day in the hospital." This is a strong argument in the article against a homosexual life style as it emphasizes the opposite vividly through the quote. Thus this article, through the quote, takes this stand. So it is not clear why there was a question to begin with, except by virtual of the diagnosis. However, by 1988 it was known that other groups besides homosexuals were diagnosed with HIV. (I am in the health care business and I remember that era vividly. That was four years, I think, after Rock Hudson.)
  • The David Poole biography is probably where we can draw a more understandable wording. Dr. Jerry Punch was in contact with Richmond while he was in the hospital, but didn't disclose much in the line of details at that time. I think that page 3 may hold the key to clarifying this. If Royalbroil (or someone else) doesn't resolve this by later tonight (USA - EST), I'll take a shot at clarification. As far as the HIV being known to exist outside the homosexual community, I have no doubts that you're accurate in that. NASCAR, at that time however, perhaps was not the most progressive in its views and understandings of the disease. At that time (and perhaps even today) there may have been / be a stigma attached to AIDS/HIV. I'm not stating that as fact, or even a personal opinion, simply a possible consideration. — Ched :  ?  21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I still don't understand why ESPN sent him a get-well card. Preceding that, he is suspended and reinstated but I don't see that he is hospitalized. It is not clear to me that he is in the hospital until the next paragraph. Sorry if I am being dense.

—Mattisse (Talk) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • If I understand what you're asking on the second bullet point - ESPN is not affiliated with NASCAR in the sense that they act as a spokes-group for NASCAR. ESPN is only a reporting organization that covers the happenings throughout NASCAR. — Ched :  ?  20:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I am referring to the continuity in the writing, as it is not clear why anyone is sending him a get well card at that point in the narration. However, it is not significant enough to be worth more discussion for a GA article. I will pass the article shortly. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows GA criteria for MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets in context and covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on article subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Is neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A nice, compact article. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)