Talk:2022 Kentucky Derby/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for the GAN drive. This is the first time I'm reviewing one of yours. If you have any questions/comments, feel free to leave them in the review.

Criteria that passes at first glance

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• The only picture used is the logo, which is relevant. This has an appproriate non-free tag. (criteria 6a + 6b)
• Checking the article's edit history, the only disagreement I saw was about table coding in April. I also saw vandalism + revdelled edits in May, neither of which are edit wars or effect stability. (criteria #5)
• Has a list of references provided (criteria #2a)

Rest of the criteria I will have to thoroughly read to determine. I'll start off with original research/copyvio/reliable sources first unless I notice something else while checking.

Qualification

P1 - Verification check

• "Participation in the Kentucky Derby is restricted to three-year-old Thoroughbreds." - Optional suggestion This is true. Since the Sports Illustrated source is talking about the 2018 Kentucky Derby, I suggest swapping to a source that mentions this for the 2022 Kentucky Derby such as The Washington Post.
  • used the Derby Leaderboard as source for this and a few others. qualification covered in first paragraph
    • Not 100% sure if Derby leaderboard explicitly states it was for thoroughbreds only. If you were wanting to cite more than one source for this part, there's only one source currently cited. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• "but international participation is uncommon in the horse racing industry" - Not 100% sure about this part. If you mean that European and Japanese competitors can now qualify to the Kentucky Derby in recent years, then yes (Japan 2017, Europe 2018). Think it'd need clarification that Japanese/European qualifiers are a recent addition.
  • Otherwise, if you mean it's uncommon for European or Japanese competitors in the 2022 Kentucky Derby, the New York Times source doesn't say that. The source says there was difficulty finding a European and Japanese competitor for the 2018 Kentucky Derby. This isn't relevant to the 2022 Kentucky Derby, making it out of scope.
    • I tweaked the wording a bit - foreign participation isn't uncommon in Europe for example, but is rare for the Derby for any number of reasons. source discusses this in the section on Crown Pride Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      • The source given (USA Today) doesn't say foreign participation is "rare" but they "aren’t usually taken seriously" --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

P2 - Verification check

• "The 2022 North American Road to the Kentucky Derby" - The Kentucky Derby source calls it the Road to the Kentucky Derby, with no mention of North America. This could be reworded to "The 2022 Road to the Kentucky Derby in the United States" (as this isn't including the races in Europe or Japan).
  • I've called it the "main Road" since one race in the series takes place in Dubai. As you say, the main Road doesn't have a proper title - JJ
    • The sources don't specify the UAE Derby is held in Dubai. I think this could be swapped to the United Arab Emirates. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• "which took place at Fair Grounds Race Course on December 26." - minor nitpick. The BloodHorse source was written before the race took place. So, this sentence could be rephrased to "which was scheduled to be held at". Or, an extra source could be added next to the BloodHorse source to show Gun Runners was held on December 26th 2021 as part of the Road to the Kentucky Derby.
  • added source - JJ
    • Now, the source has the problem of not stating the Gun Runner Stakes was the first one ever, nor that in previous years it was 36 races instead of 37. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• In regards to Medina Spirit and doping, only USA Today confirms it, not the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Therefore, you can drop the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette source.
• "Baffert transferred four of his potential Derby contenders" - yes, but the way the sentence reads, to me, he gave four each to Yakteen and Brisset. Which isn't the case since it was 1 and 3. Maybe clarify it was a combined total of 4, not 4 each.
  • I revised the text a fair bit. Baffert didn't transfer the horses; the owners did. Different source added. FYI, the LA Times article only talked about a few of the horses that were eventually moved - Baffert's entire barn was shut down when he was finally suspended for 90 days in April Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Sources aren't clear of whether the suspension happened after the ban. So, "subsequent suspension" should be shorten to suspension.
    • New sources also don't state the transfer of horses to Brisset, only Yakteen.
    • "after earning qualifying points after the transfer" - I don't think so. The WHAS source that mentions the transfer to Yakteen was on May 4th, which was after the final qualifying races in April. So, I don't know if the horses already qualified under Baffert before the transfer or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

P3 - Verification check

• "The major preps began on March 26" - Suggestion Since Kentucky Derby says UAE Derby comes before the Louisiana Derby on the same day, I think the result order should match as well with the sentence beforehand listing all 8 majors. First Crown Pride with UAE Derby then Epicenter with Louisiana Derby
• "While a Derby invitation is extended to the winner of the European and the Japan Road to the Derby, none of the top finishers from either circuit were nominated for the Triple Crown, and their trainers did not accept their invitation" - bolded parts not in Dark Moon Rising BloodHorse ref.
• "The one Japanese horse who participated in the Derby" - Yoshida BloodHorse citation was written before the Kentucky Derby was held. Need an extra source to show Crown Pride did race in the Derby, as not all those who fulfill the requirements to enter the Derby are chosen.
  • "did so by qualifying through the North American system." - Bloodhorse doesn't specify it was the American Road.
  • see edits - JJ

Broadness/focus P1

• "As such, all participants in the 2022 race were foaled in 2019, and most originated from the 2019 North American crop of 20,433 foals." - This mainly seems out of scope to me, with Original research mixed into it with the "most originated" part.
  • this speaks to the competition level - at the most fundamental level, roughly 20,000 are eligible for the race and only 20 qualify. As for the "most originated" - this is again a basic fact - 19 were foaled in the US. The 20th, Crown Pride, is discussed later.
• "This was the smallest North American foal crop since 1966, in which 20,228 Thoroughbreds were foaled." Also seems out of scope to me.
  • again speaks to the level of competition - smaller foal crops generally mean lower level. this type of info is important to some horse racing followers

Broadness/focus P2

• Why is the European Road to the Kentucky Derby and Japanese Road amount of races/dates to the Kentucky Derby not mentioned? Especially since Kentucky Derby has a list of races/dates for them.
  • Also Kentucky Derby says they would give an invite to the top Japanese and European horse for their respective roads. Even though Delicada and Dark Moon Rising were not nominated to the field, I think they should be mentioned as they were given invites. EDIT: I see mention in paragraph 3 that the top European and Japanese horse were given offers and the jockeys declined without a citation. This source could be helpful to show the offers, but another citation would be needed to show the jockeys for Delicada and Dark Moon Rising declined. More review later --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Not relevant here. There's a whole article if people want more details. The leaderboard shows all the horses on the Japan and European road as crossed out, which means " Sidelined, inactive or appears to be no longer under serious Kentucky Derby consideration" - JJ

Close matching/close paraphrasing P2+P3 Y

• "the inaugural Gun Runner Stakes" - "inaugural" could be reworded to avoid a match of an unique word.Y
• "2021 Kentucky Derby, Medina Spirit tested positive for the banned steroid betamethasone." - sentence structure closely paraphrases/matches USA Today and need summarizing to pass WP:LIMITED.Y
• "Baffert transferred four" - I suggest rewording "transferred" to avoid using an unique matching word.Y
• "won the UAE Derby in an upset" - while Kentucky Derby called it an "upset", I think another word is needed to avoid matching the unique word.Y
  • all done - JJ

Words to watch

• "Two of these horses, Taiba and Messier, eventually started in the Derby after earning qualifying points after the transfer" - bolded word sounds like MOS:RELTIME issue as it's not precise. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Field

P1 - Verification check

• "was considered to be one of the deepest in recent memory" - Washington Post does call the field "deep" but doesn't compare to previous Kentucky Derbys.
• "with no clear favorite in the weeks leading up to the race" -> "in the days leading up to the race" (as the sources were written on May 2nd and May 6th, the race was on May 7th).
  • With the new sources, there are favorites (Lexington Herald Leader chose Smile Happy, BloodHorse chose Epicenter). I think "no clear favorite" could be reworded to state there wasnt an agreement on who would win & attribute who picked who. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• I used SC Times and Yahoo! Finance to verify the Courier Journal links ("What to know about the horse") as I couldn't access them for Zandon and Epicenter. The archived links don't work either.
  • "had a 2–1–1 record in four graded stakes races" SC Times says 2-1-1 for Zandon's previous four races, but doesn't specify they were at graded stakes races.Y
    • added more sources to get around paywall issues. good catch about the "graded stakes races" - the correct wording is "lifetime starts" or words to that effect. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC) (JJ)

P2 - Verification check Y

• "Abarrio had a 4–0–1 record in five graded stakes starts," - no reference to graded stakes for his 4-0-1 record. Also should be White Abarrio, not Abarrio as this is a horse, not a person.Y
• "need to vacate their post before the race," - ESPN doesnt say about the possibility the horses needing to leave the race before it started. ESPN says about the possibility of the horses being removed before the race is started. The horses aren't the ones to make the decision of leaving the race.Y
  • done - JJ

Close matching/close paraphrasing P1

• "one of the deepest" - unless deep is a horse racing term, I suggest rewording "deepest" to avoid the unique matching.Y
• "4–1–0 in six starts" - suggest rewording to avoid exact match for limited wording.
• "notoriously difficult starting post due to its high-traffic position close to the rail" - need rewording to avoid close paraphrasing/matching. The parts I'm most concerned about are bolded.
• "break from the third post" - slight reword needed to avoid close matching
  • reworded where I could, though x-y-z is industry standard wording - JJ
• "with no clear favorite" - needs rewording as it's similar to Washington Post --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Close matching/close paraphrasing P2 + P3

• "3–3–0 record in six starts" - close matching.
• "the next-highest ranked horse" - little bit of rewording needed for limited phrasing.
• "1–0–3 in seven career starts" - close matching, especially with "career starts"
  • reworded where I could - JJ
• "If any of the 20 Derby entries is withdrawn from the race before betting begins, the next-highest ranked horse on the leaderboard draws into their place." - needs rewriting as it's closely resembles ESPN with the sentence structure. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar P1 - P3

• "Epicenter, meannwhile," -> meanwhile --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Y
• Saffie Joseph Jr,while -> Saffie Joseph Jr. and space after the comma.Y
• "Should any of the top-20 Road to the Kentucky Derby finishers need to vacate their post before the race, the next-highest ranked horse draws into their place." - needs to be rewritten in the future tense since the race already happened but the ESPN source was before the race started.
• "On May 6, the day before the race, Ethereal Road, set to race from the 20th post, was scratched from the Derby." - sounds choppy with the excessive commas. As all of the content is important, this could be rewritten to 2 sentences.Y
  • fixed, though I don't really know what the correct tense is for the first sentence of P3. It's just a rule of horse racing that applies to any field that has a full field with also eligible horses - JJ
• "had a 2–1–1 record (two wins, a second and a third-place finish)" should be rewritten without brackets. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality P2

• "Also considered strong contenders for the Derby" - "strong" doesn't seem netural. Also, this opinion is only by Louisville Courier Journal (USA Today republished it). Did any other newspapers/sources have similar opinions with these 3 horses? If not, then it needs to be attributed only to the Louisville Courier Journal.
  • "strong" could be "well considered" or some other term that indicates they had a relatively high level of support from handicappers. the odds are an indication of support, so the horses mentioned in this section were the top five on the morning line - JJ

Broadness/focus P2+3

• "Taiba, the winner of the Santa Anita Derby, was also trained by Yakteen" - True. But, Taiba was also one of Baffert's horses that were traded before the race according to USA Today. Needs inclusion here since the previous sentence mention Messier was originally Baffert's horse.Y
  • done - JJ
• "Sired by Gun Runner" - Detail that is not relevant to the Derby and should be removed.Y
  • done - JJ
• "His only win came in his maiden race on September 17, 2021." - I think this detail is excessive and should be removed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • it's a very important detail for horse racing experts. I added the detail that it was a maiden 'claiming' race
    • Not sure if it's important. If it is, maybe it's more suited in the last paragraph of the Race description section. Then, a connection of relevance would be given. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Race description

prose & neutrality check

• "such precipitation had the chance to alter the race landscape" - Does this mean that the rain would effect the racetrack and possibly it muddy? If so, this is redundant as it's already mentioned the racetrack could have been covered in mud. If it means something else, please let me know.Y
  • changed the last word to 'dynamics' some horses run better in mud than others. upsets become more likely. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Churchill Downs was 62 °F (17 °C)" - "the weather at Churchill Downs was 62 °F (17 °C)"Y
  • done - JJ
• "Messier took the lead at the 3⁄4-mile mark but was soon overtaken by Epicenter until the final stretch, when Rich Strike, who had been trailing from 15th place after the first mile," - Think this could be split into 2 sentences due to the 3 commas.Y
• "the race at No. 15" -> "the race in fifteenth" or something similar to avoid abbreviation Y
  • done and done - JJ
• "Only three horses in the Derby had previously raced on an "off" track" - no mention of "off" with Washington Post. With the way it's quoted, it doesn't sound netural either. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Rich Strike, who had been well back early," - bolded part sounds either MOS:EDITORIAL or MOS:RELTIME and should be dropped for neturality/words to watch --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Words to watch Y

• "meaning that the dirt was "completely dry and at optimal efficiency" - sounds like editorializing to me per MOS:EDITORIALY
  • removed. linked to Going (horse racing) - JJ

close copying/paraphrasing check

• "a sloppy, muddy, or wet dirt track" - closely matching. This isn't really needed as it's redundant to the previous sentence.Y
• "62 °F (17 °C) with cloudy skies and 10 mph (16 km/h) winds. The track condition was listed as fast, meaning that the dirt was "completely dry and at optimal efficiency" - closely matches Lexington Herald-Leader. The part I'm concerned the most is bolded. Though, the first part can use a slight rewording as well to avoid the same 2 sentence structure (weather + track) that the source used.
• "but below the projected 170,000 attendees" - "projected" can be reworded as it's an unique word used by Louisville Courier Journal. I had to use Yahoo Sports to access.Y
• "ticket sales were limited" - close match. "limited" could be reworded here.Y
• "the second-biggest upset in Kentucky Derby history" - exact match that needs rewording.
  • done - JJ

Verification check + optional url fixes

• "Messier took the lead at the 3⁄4-mile mark but was soon overtaken by Epicenter" - not stated by Columbia Missourian. Source needed for this part only as it does state Rich Strike was in 15th with a 1/4 of the race to go.
  • • this is in the chart (the single best reference for the race after all). Not sure why the Columbia Missourian source was put here - JJ
  • Columbia Missourian also needs an archived link if you plan to use it elsewhere.
• The Los Angeles Times source "Rich Strike shocks" is linked here
• The archived link for Courier Journal (against all odds) doesn't work. Had to use yahoo finance to verify.
• Archived link for Courier Journal (Eric Reed) also doesn't work. Had to use yahoo finance again to verify.
  • paywall issues. I put a few more non paywalled-sources in as well - JJ

Aftermath

Verification check Y

• "Shortly after winning the Kentucky Derby," - this is Original Research as it doesn't state when the Kentucky Derby was to compare when the announcement was made. So, "shortly" should be dropped here.Y
  • added specific date - JJ
• "thus precluding the possibility of the horse winning that year's Triple Crown" - While it's true, that's not what Dawson said. The plan was to race in the Belmont Stakes only, though he did discuss the possiblity over before deciding not to. This sentence needs removal unless another source specifically says that not racing in the Preakness Stakes would prevent any chances of winning the Triple Crown.Y
  • The American Triple Crown consists of the Derby, Preakness and Belmont, thus by definition missing the Preakness means you can't be a Triple Crown winner. Its such a known fact in the industry that no source bothers to state it explicitly. *shrug*. removed this part of the sentence. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Broadness/focus

• "Instead, Early Voting won the Preakness," - Too much detail. Needs removal.
• "while Epicenter became the first horse since 2012's Bodemeister to finish second in both races" - I think this is too much detail as well, though I can see why it's here.
  • I left it in, because we've started adding in a section about Subsequent Grade I wins for entrants in the race. The idea is to be able to spot strong Derby fields (eg, 2007, compared to weak ones like 2014
    • If you want this to stay, there should be connection to either Grade I and/or the Triple Crown for both Preakness and Belmont. Therefore, it'd show why this is important. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Close wording

• "five weeks of rest" - close match. Bolded part could be dropped to fix.Y
• "a healthy Derby winner" - close match
  • dropped the first. can't think of a good replacement for the other. it's just common usage - JJ
    • Then I think this part should be rephrased/restructured enough to pass WP:LIMITED while keeping the same meaning. "Healthy" can't be fully dropped as Country Horse couldn't compete in 2019 due to illness. Maybe another source has the same fact but without the limited wording? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Netural check Y

• "adequately prepare" - bolded part doesn't sound neutral and should be dropped.Y
  • done - JJ

Results verification check

• The following margins need correcting: Y
  • Mo Donegal's 3 3/4, not 5 3/4.
  • Messier's 19 1/4, not 19.
  • White Abarrrio 20, not 19 3/4.
  • Charge It 28, not 27 3/4.
  • Cyberknife 42 3/4, not 42 1/2
  • Pioneer of Medina 57. not 56 3/4.
    • Good catch. I'm wondering if Equibase made some minor fixes after the chart was originally posted - Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• In regards to Rattle N Roll:
  • The Washington Post does not provide Morning Line Odds for this horse. You can swap the reference for the ESPN source used in note b as it has it.
  • "He did not draw into the race as there was only one scratch" - No, Rattle N Roll was scratched too per Courier Journal. Kentucky Derby confirms it too. I think since Rich Strike took the #20 post, Rattle N Roll couldn't compete.Y
    • both are correct actually. he was scratched because he didn't draw into the race because there wasn't room for him because only one horse from the original field scratched. Also eligibles are confusing! I hate using the word scratch for a horse that was never in the race to start with. Reworded. Does it work for you? - JJ
      • Seems okay. Don't forget the ESPN morning line odds per above. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Payout section

• No verification issues. Only linking suggestion per below.

Linking suggestions (optional)

• Glossary of North American horse racing#scratch for scratched in Field section.
• Parimutuel_betting#North_America for Super High 5 in Payout section as it has Super 5 there. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Going_(horse_racing)#United_States for "muddy or sloppy" in race description.

Infobox verification check

• The following either need sources, adjustment or removal as it's not mentioned in the prose:
  • Image caption or rename it to something that fits more the 2022 Kentucky Derby.
  • 2,012 meters isn't mentioned. This could be swapped to 2.0 km instead as it's cited already.
• No mention of RED TR-Racing for the owner in the prose. Source needed or removal.

Lead

Verification check

• As there's mention that the Kentucky Derby is a Grade I race, the prose should also state that. It currently doesn't in the race description. The infobox has it with no source.
• Epicenter finished in second, then Zandon. The lead has it swapped.
• "Entering the race with 80–1 morning line odds" - no, 80-1 was the final odds.

Prose & close wording

• "the second-largest upset in Derby history" - needs rewording to avoid a similar issue with Race Description close wording.
• "the first graded stakes win in any race" - bolded sounds redundant.

Overall

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Issues I've found:

• Spelling/grammar - 1 typo, spacing issue, 1 choppy sentence & convert to future tense all in Field section.
• MOS - Lead - has some content not mentioned in text
• Original research - various issues
• Close parapharsing/copyvio - mostly issues with unique words, but there are some sentences that are too similar that also need rewording.
• Broadness - some information looks missing in terms of trading while lack of focus of European/Japanese Roads.
• Focus - some parts are too detailed and i think don't belong here.
• Netural - some wording issues with words to watch/tone.

@GhostRiver: @Jlvsclrk: Since I see that Jlvsclrk has been working on this, I'll put this on hold for a week so these issues can be worked through (June 16th) then see how much progress is needed. Would you be adding Jlvsclrk as a co-nominator? Also, could you sign your posts Jlvsclrk? Therefore, I can keep track when/which of these issues were worked on. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Recap

@GhostRiver: Since the 16th is coming up soon, I thought I'd ping you. Here's what's left to fix:

• Verification:
  • Mostly in Qualification section (P1 - P3), which includes new issues after the initial fixes.
  • Additional fixes that are required but have not been started on are in the infobox & lead.
  • Results also has 1 point to fix.
  • Couple of points in Field (P1)
• Words to watch: Qualification, Race description each has 1 to fix
• Neutrality:
  • 1 new point at Race description
  • 1 point at Field section.
• Close paraphrasing/matches:
  • 1 point at Aftermath
  • Points at Field section (P1)
  • Points at Field section (P2+3)
• Broadness/Focus:
  • Question of whether maiden claiming race is needed in Field section, moved to Race description section, or removed.
  • Questions for Aftermath section with later Grade I races
  • Questions for numbers of horses (P1) and European/Japanese Road (P2/P3)

This list may be updated as I need to mainly check the Field section for initial fixes and decide if the other parts are fine for broadness/focus. Since you have been not as active due to your move, what would you like to do? Do you wish to keep this on hold after the 16th? Or, would you prefer if I close this earlier or on the 16th as a fail to let you work on this on your own time? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 Thank you for the update; I should be able to finish everything within the next couple of days, but I will obviously need some time past the 16th. I am almost finished building furniture etc. and now need to get my ducks in a row. — GhostRiver 14:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Since you're planning to work on this, I'll keep it open for now. I've also updated the list as well. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: I see that you've been active but haven't made any edits to this article nor the GAN. What is the status of this GAN? There also hasn't been any GAN edits to the article since January 9th, and almost two weeks since the article was put on hold. If you'd prefer to have this article failed so you can work on it at a later time, please let me know. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 I still plan on working on this. Most of my other edits in this time have been to other pending GANs that have been waiting for longer. It's taken me longer than expected to get my bearings, especially with a few unexpected issues that have popped up in the last few days. I'd prefer the article stay on hold than be failed if only because, knowing myself, I would not get around to making the edits if it were failed for a renomination. — GhostRiver 04:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. If something comes up that prevents you from working on this, please let me know. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: It's been over a week since your last reply here. It's also been 3 weeks since this GAN has been put on hold. While another editor has previously worked on this GAN review, they have not returned to addressing these GAN issues. I understand that you wish to keep this open in order to work on it, but there has not been any edits by you to this article. If you had been working on this off and on, I'd be more encouraged to keep this on hold. I also cannot address these issues myself as it involves multiple criteria. Therefore, I'll have to close this as unsuccessful. I hope this close will encourage you to fix these issues and renominate this article quickly. I also hope that no more unexpected events happen to you. Take care :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My issue (A technical meaning of a word is used without clarification or linking) was not addressed in this long evlauation. Kdammers (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.