Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jersey Act/archive1

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 Karanacs 16:15, 20 October 2010 [1].

---

Jersey Act

Jersey Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Jersey Act/archive1

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk and Malleus Fatuorum, 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom, if someone kind would fix that please? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support and two comments

Five Thoroughbreds in the first paragraph is about two too many.

I am not a fan of beginning sentences with a preposition, it seems like most prepositional phrases could be moved elsewhere in the sentence. Dincher (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph has been been rewritten, now down to three "Thoroughbreds". Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Query If I've read correctly, unregistered horses could and did race, and presumably successful nags would be valued for their progeny as per Darwinian inheritance. So why did it actually matter whether they were in the stud book or not — presumably they were still allowed to mate? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, totally unregistered horses were NOT allowed to race. Horses that were registered in another country's Thoroughbred stud book were allowed to race, they were just not necessarily allowed to be registered in the British stud book. Only horses registered in a Thoroughbred registry of some country were (and still are) allowed to race on most race tracks (well, there are some exceptions, but they are restricted to other registries or to very minor race tracks that don't allow parimutal betting). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC) p.s. So yes, the story in the Black Stallion books couldn't happen, as the Black isn't registered so he'd never be allowed to race. Children's stories don't have to obey most real life rules. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment just a couple of issues before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• A number of horses bred that way raced and won in England, but they were considered to be "half-bred". — Clunky and repeats "bred". How about A number of horses of suspect ancestry...
• A number of horses bred that way... — the next sentence and the opening of next para also A number of ...

Changed that first sentence to "The Jersey Act did not prevent the racing of horses containing the banned bloodlines, as horses with the suspect breeding raced and won in England, but they were considered to be "half-bred"." which should resolve both complaints. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• What is the connection between The Times and Infotrac (the three subscription services)? Which Times is this?
• There is a slight inconsistency in adding retrieval dates. They are there for The Palm Beach Post and Thoroughbred Times, but not The Pittsburgh Press

Should be fixed now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's The Times, so I've wikilinked the first occurrence to make that clearer. Is that what you meant? Infotrac is the web host for the Times Digital Archive. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support on 1abde 2abc 4 ; 2c needs fixits, I'm incapable of 1c on this or 3. Read the article in full and found it to be a good read (I'm not a horsey person at all). Comments 2c:
  • I am in favour of The Times being what they are, not what they are not (The Times (London)).
  • Staff for The Times but not for "Racing Through the Century: 1911–1920". Thoroughbred Times. 14 February 2000."? Suggest "Staff. (14 February 2000). "Racing Through the Century: 1911–1920". Thoroughbred Times."
  • Date inconsistency between publication dates and retrieval dates?
  • Lexington, KY ; Robertson, William H. P. (1964). New York? State required for New York?
  • Retrieval date: Williams, Joe (1943-12-22). ?

I'll get the others, but the retrieval/publication dates is an issue with the templates and I may not be able to fix that. There is no need to put state in New York, as there is no need to put UK after London, it's one of those "everyone knows it" types of things. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything but the NY should be fixed now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lovely! Speaking of which, I have lodged an improvement request with Citation/core regarding the display of work publication dates for works without an author/editor :). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – A very pleasing read from beginning to end. For the couple of comments I would have made, it was easier to just fix them myself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.