Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Pharoah/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2015 [1].

American Pharoah edit

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC), User:Vesuvius Dogg, User:Tigerboy1966 , User:Froggerlaura[reply]

This article is about the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years, a delightful young racehorse with a brilliant future. The team at WikiProject horse racing worked very hard on this article. This is, I think, the fourth or fifth FAC presented by WikiProject horse racing, and we look forward to the review Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and forgot to add that I am a wikicup participant and this is a wikicup entry! Sorry to have forgotten that! Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Owner_Zayat_Stables_Ltd.svg: do you have a source to confirm this design? It's hard to tell from the lead image, and adding a link to the image description would be worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a better photo do the job? I'm finding that locating official Jockey Club registration silk designs descriptions in the USA is a booger, as each state registers its own, but then grants reciprocity to others. (the UK is way easier) User:JockeyColours does them up, usually based on photos. I'm open to ideas. Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Follow up: Would the stables web site here work as a source? (Has an image of the silks in a graphic and on a t-shirt...) Montanabw(talk) 02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose edit

I know nothing about horses, racing and so on but have happily had a look through at prose, formatting etc. I think this is well written and structured and have tried to help out a little with copy-editing. I am sorry not to be giving a more detailed review but I really feel unqualified to comment on the real content where I am so utterly ignorant of the field. Nevertheless I am comfortable endorsing the prose, formatting etc as meeting the FA criteria. I like the 2015 Belmont Stakes photograph very much; great action shot, really rather majestic. Impressive, like your article. Well done to all concerned, and apologies again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SchroCat edit

Nicely put together and well-written. Two minor points for you to consider, which will not affect my support: the link to Littleprincessemma is a circular link back to the article, so it should either be stubbed or the link removed. The second point relates to FNs 31 and 32 with a double set of quote marks because of the horse's name. I think I'm right in saying that we should use a single quote mark within quotes, and this stands true for titles too. – SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • FIXED, make sure I did the fixes to you satisfaction. Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments (most are preferences) by Victoria edit

  • "When he was a few days old, he and Littleprincessemma went to nearby Pretty Run Farm, also owned by VanMeter, where they remained for a few months,[15] then the mare and foal were moved to Vinery, another Lexington farm that stabled Pioneerof the Nile, where American Pharoah was weaned at five months of age.[16][c]" >> I got lost about half way through this sentence, so suggest splitting or somehow rewriting.
    • Split and rewrote. Better? (Montanabw)
  • I added a couple of non-breaking spaces because the day/month were splitting between lines. Can't remember the rules about this, but might be worth taking a look. If you don't think it's a big deal, it's ok to revert, because it's really just a preference.
    • It was helpful, thanks! (Montanabw)
  • I removed a couple of instances of "trainer" in front of Baffert. He's blue-linked and I think once it's been established he's the trainer it's okay simply to call him Baffert without his title (though he does deserve a hell of a lot of credit for training this horse!). Again it's a preference and up to you.
    • Also helpful, thanks! (Montanabw)
  • There's some repetition in the construction of "Baffert commented" >> I have no suggestion for this. It's difficult to work out but might be worth it to improve flow.
    • Fixed, eliminated all but two uses, and only once by Baffert. (Montanabw)
  • The text box is very bright! Again, this is only a preference, but for some reason it's a color that bothers me (I'm prone to headaches)
    • I was trying to get the same shade of turquoise as the Zayat stables' racing silks (see how I used purple and green at California Chrome, it's just for fun) but I'll try to lighten it up a bit, that's fair (I have 50+ year old eyes and so I know how some things can be visually challenging...). Made it several shades lighter, is that better? (Montanabw)
      • I noticed the color matched the silks. It's much better now. Could be that my monitor is too bright! (VE)
  • The sloppy track image is great. Personally I'd boost it way high, and made a test edit here to see what it looks like. Up to you, but we won't see another American Pharoah in a while, so I think it's worth showcasing that shot.
    • That's intriguing! I know that sort of layout passed muster at Richard Nixon's FAC - but I also remember the controversy. Wondering if @Nikkimaria: would think it's OK, she's the image person of FAC. Or perhaps @Wehwalt: could opine, as he was a lead editor at Nixon. I'd do it if it won't cause issues for other reviewers. (Montanabw)
      • At the very bottom of the page in teeny-tiny font is the option to view the article in mobile view - just click there and you can see how it would look. I think it looks nice with the sea of mud, but agree that others should weigh in. (VE)

That's all. Nice work to all of you at Wikiproject horse racing. It's been an exciting year! Victoria (tk) 19:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll see what I can do to fix the above. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC) @Victoriaearle: I think I have addressed all of your concerns, let me know if they are now OK and if there are further changes needed. Montanabw(talk) 22:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, thanks. It's all good. Nice job. Victoria (tk) 23:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by Gerda edit

I like the lively style, showing contagious enthusiasm for the subject, including in many quotes by other enthusiasts. I am not familiar with horse language, so can tell that it's comprehensible to an outsider ;) - Minor points, and just questions you can answer with no:

  • In Background: First we know about the colt, only then about the parents. My feeling for chronology would have it the other way round. - Alternatively, the para might be split in Background and Description/Character/you name it.
  • Can you create at least stubs on the red links?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is a standard layout in the racehorse articles to describe the horse and what he or she looks like, then go to parentage. (In many kinds of sales and competitions, they usually describe horses this way: "Foobar is a 2014 bay colt by (stallion) Foo out of (mare) Bar, bred by ..." and so on) I am certainly willing to improve the flow of the prose, though, if you can point out what sounds awkward. Montanabw(talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I killed two redlinks in the endnotes (not super likely to become articles), I already stubbed Littleprincessemma, perhaps we can inquire why @Tigerboy1966: redlinked the others - usually it's because a horse is on the WikiProject Horse racing "to do" list to get an article but just hasn't happened yet. He is in the best position to know if these horses are in the "likely to" meet GNG. In the meantime, I have had articles pass FAC with a few red links. Is this better? Montanabw(talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Do I have your issues addressed now? (Checking to see if you support or not yet...) Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can support, thank you for adjusting, - I will not go and fight the standard ;) - Please link the dam also in the body, - some people have opted out seeing the infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:: Ian needs someone to check sources. This one has been languishing. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN60 links to the main ABC Sports page - is there a more specific link available? Also, 60 and 61 appear to be the same source
    • Fixed that with a wayback and consolidated dup link. Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links
  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if they appear again later
    • Cited quote in lead. (Froggerlaura)
  • The quotes that are ." are ends of sentences anyway. I see three examples of ". and all of them are LQ for the context. I don't see a problem, but if you do, feel free to fix it. Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Times reported breeding rights had been sold..." - since there is a publication called The Times and you've put in a different source between this and the previous NYT mention, should say NYT explicitly here also
  • FN8: Zayat Stables is the publisher, but this ref is also formatted differently from the similar FN33
    • Fixed. Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've still got Zayat listed as the work - it's the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the web site, I think the two refs are now identically formatted.
  • FN29: newspaper name should be italicized
Fixed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN34: why the different formatting from other sports television refs?
    • that ref is specifically to a video, not just an online story attached to a video, hence needing the time stamp and all. Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Timestamp is fine, but the italicization is off - elsewhere you've italicized channel names. Video titles that aren't full-length movies generally get put in quotation marks, not italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tell that to the people who created the "cite video" and cite av media templates - I changed the template to citeweb so it matches the others. Better? Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Racing Post refs use work title, others website name - should be consistent
  • FN71 and 54 don't match - 71 is closer, although you could omit author entirely
  • FN63: Leverage Agency is publisher
  • FN66: AP should be listed as agency
Fixed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some inconsistencies in wikilinking throughout - how are you deciding what gets linked?
    • We are behaving in a completely random fashion! (Multiple editors) but where I spot it, I'll unlink unless consensus is that the particular source needs a link... flag anything you see that we've missed? Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN85: per the article the work title is written as ESPNEWS
  • Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks links
    • Respectfully disagree; in the past I've seen some of these have pages taken down and such... "need" maybe MOS disagrees, but is that a huge deal? Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's taken down, you won't be able to find an archived link unless you create one yourself now and add it in. Plus the citation details are to the book itself and the link is merely a convenience. It's up to you, but these really don't provide any value. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The URL is what is important to me (much, much faster to find the work if the link is there) but I can take down the accessdate, not a moral issue. Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN126: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publisher added for GSB. (Froggerlaura)

@Nikkimaria:: Did we get them all? Montanabw(talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - what did you settle on for Racing Post? You've still got some racingpost.com and some Racing Post. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/American_Pharoah/archive1&oldid=1138454384"