Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxbow (horse)/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 Ian Rose 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Oxbow (horse)

edit

Oxbow (horse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

Nominator(s): Montanabw (talk), Froggerlaura (talk), Craiglduncan (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has evolved into a surprisingly thorough work on a very tough, quirky and interesting American race horse who is surrounded by an equally quirky and interesting cast of human characters: a reclusive billionaire owner, a 77-year-old trainer, and a 50-year-old jockey in the midst of a comeback from retirement. I am submitting it for FAC in part on the recommendation of peer reviewers who felt it already exceeds GA standard and could be a featured article. This article had extensive contributions from myself, Craiglduncan, Froggerlaura, Tigerboy1966, TonytheTiger and a very thorough peer review and copyedits from User:Eric Corbett and User:The Rambling Man, with an additional runthrough by User:Ealdgyth of WikiProject Equine. It's a team effort and we're pleased with the result. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • Lead caption: 2013 Preakness Stakes, or the 2013 Preakness Stakes, as in lead text? Also, shouldn't end this caption with a period
  • Don't include quote-initial or terminal ellipses
  • "Stevens later commented, "His mind was right ...[53] When I hit the half-mile pole ... The race was over at that point ...[26] [t]hey gave me a free three-quarters of a mile today ...[54] Stevens later tweeted" - I'm guessing the quote should end at FN54?
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These comments are more helpful when a reviewer says, "I think you put the quotation mark in the wrong place" (smile) I had to re-read that three times to figure out what you were saying. (Middle-aged eyes make these kinds of mistakes and sometimes it's difficult to see the error unless it's noted with some specificity. Just saying) --Montanabw
  • Why are you choosing to have citations in the middle of quotes?
    • Split quotes to reference them separately. I think it sub-optimal, but my prose is weak, so perhaps another editor can give it a going-over. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Because they came from multiple sources and not from just one interview. (Stevens and Lukas are both kind of verbose, and in different interviews makes the same points but says it in slightly different ways.) I did go through and consolidate two quotes that were in the same article into the same bit to avoid citing twice. For the rest, I could lump the citations all at the end, if having three or more cites at the end is better than having them in the middle, but as is, makes it easier to say what came from where and avoids implication that everything was said at the same time in the same place. But open to suggestions. --Montanabw
      Huh. I understand why you'd want to combine similar stuff, but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to have stuff from multiple sources within a single set of quote marks - even with the citations, it still kinda implies same time and place. Let's see whether any other reviewers want to chime in on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've got some wiggle room, whatever gets us there. I could fix the quote marks, if that's the problem. My concern was to avoid 25,000 quote boxes or excessive quotes in the article text; kind of wanted to sum things up via the simple quote box. My other concern was to capture the proper spirit of what the people had to say -- in these racing stories, they sort of get microphones shoved into their faces practically at the finish line (sometimes while the jockey is still on the horse- literally), then a press conference about five minutes after they walk off the track, and then more follow ups afterwards, and so the people involved start to repeat the same stuff, but then verbally edit their previous remarks in the subsequent interviews (I spared everyone Lukas' remark about how he gets paid to "spoil [triple crown] dreams," he said it in about five interviews...) Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC) I think I fixed the issue by finding a totally different source with a more extensive quote. Does that work? 23:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links
  • Compare FNs 8 and 9 and 25 - same site, why the different formatting?
    • Same formatting now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the work and publisher both to those sites as well, now OK here if OK with the reviewer. --Montanabw
      • Still not the same - compare "Kentucky.com (Lexington Herald-Leader)" in FN8 with "Kentucky.com. Lexington Herald-Leader" in FN 9 and 27. It doesn't much matter whether parentheses are used or not, but pick one. I'd also suggest reversing the italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Addressed with question: Nikki, part of the problem is the template; I put them all to "cite web" (some were "cite news" which got us the parentheses). My question back to you is that as created, putting Kentucky.com as "work" and lexington Herald-Leader as publisher (which appears to be accurate) you get the italicization you think should be flipped. Can you comment further? (Or, if you wish, just flip it as you see fit?) --Montanabw
          • My inclination would be to see both as work and McClatchy as publisher; however, their website is ambiguous on this point and it'd be a pain to do with the template clearly, so what we have now is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this guy a high-quality reliable source? SB Nation? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks unlikely that this blogger or the site publishing his blogs will be RS. Need to find another. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree per WP:NEWSBLOG. The SB nation articles are in plain English and dovetail with the RS Brisnet source, which is filled with abbreviations that most laypeople can't interpret. THAT SAID, I reworded the Risen Star Stakes an Rebel Stakes narratives to correspond with the just the Brisnet source, cut SB nation for the Risen Star and joined it next to Brisnet for the Rebel. I found a different source for the Belmont morning line, that wasn't too tough. Does that solve the problem? --Montanabw
      • Sorry, I'm not sure how NEWSBLOG would apply? SB Nation appears to be a contract blogger collective, and it's not clear what qualifications, if any, those authors have (unless you happen to know their backgrounds? The site bios weren't too helpful.) Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, did my fixes solve the problem? I cut all but one ref entirely, and the one I kept dovetails with the Brisnet ref that is right with it. I see the problem with SB Nation (now, didn't earlier) but it happens to actually have fairly decent coverage for the horse racing stuff, sometimes better than local papers who assign non-horse-knowledgable reporters to stories. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, for Gardner it's fine now. There is another SB Nation source (FN33) - once for a direct quote, which is fine, and again for "Stevens unsuccessfully attempted...". Ideally we could find an additional source for that second bit? Or, alternatively, a source discussing the coverage/reliability of SB Nation? If not possible it's okay, though suboptimal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I think we can keep the source, as the author is a fellow named Joe DePaolo. If you read the actual piece, it's a very long feature article that happens to be published on SB Nation, but the author is clearly a RS: from the SB nation piece, "Joe DePaolo has written about sports and entertainment for The New York Times, ESPN.com, and a host of other prominent print and Internet outlets." I checked this, and found three articles by him on ESPN, and several horse racing articles in the New York Times articles (Not counting the ones on a Joseph DePaolo) and he also blogs for Huff Post. Horse racing nation lso has several articles by him but I can't do the URL properly because the site is blacklisted for some reason (if you want to check that one, try www. and horseracingnation and then .com and then to /blogs/BigAConfidential#) I think that makes the author a RS for horse racing articles. Now, if you disagree, I can probably go dig up something else, but that particular article happens to be a pretty extensive one that isn't written by some random blogger. Both uses referenced the jockey's thought process during the Arkansas Derby, and probably the most extensive discussion of that particular race. I'd prefer to keep it as is, but let me know your thoughts. Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I'm kind of fighting to keep that bit is because it goes straight to the point that the horse has a personality quirk that he doesn't like to run anywhere but close to the front and there's hell to pay if you try to convince him otherwise (which probably cost him the Belmont, and maybe the Derby); if one of the best jockeys in the country couldn't control him when he tried to rate his pace and save some for later, and same jockey took a month to figure him out, that's really, really pertinent; particularly because the Preakness proved that once the horse WAS in front, he was controllable and perfectly happy to slow it down a little. (watch the race, if you look closely, the horse had his ears pricked forward in the backstretch and a couple of other times later on, he was happy as could be up in front, it was the being in front part, not the going fast part, that mattered to the horse ...) What I didn't put into this article was a comment I found by D. Wayne's girlfriend (not exactly a RS, though she probably knows horses) that Oxbow has a "Napoleon complex" i.e. small, stubborn and opinionated. I got into this article partly because this horse just amuses the heck out of me. (I also just put up a new article on his almost-full brother Paynter (horse), who is also tough as nails and likes to run in the front.) Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Follow up and anyway, the Detroit News article mentioned the same thing, so I doubled up with that source as well. Are we good now?[reply]
Yep, that's good. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with more nitpicks (and pending spotchecks if delegates deem necessary)

  • Triple Crown linked twice in lead
    Fixed. We had an earlier peer reviewer suggest the second example might confuse people with the Breeder's Cup Classic, but I think the rewording also solves that problem --MTBW
  • "only two wins until victory" -> "only two wins before victory"?
    Fixed by saying "prior to his". Hope that works --MTBW
  • Triple Crown Race or race? Check consistency
    Fixed all to lower case, at least I think I got them all (bad eyes, younger eyes checking will help here...)? --MTBW
  • There's a fair bit of whitespace above each race in the "Major wins" part of the infobox - any way to reduce that? And do we really need to identify species in the infobox?
    I am so NOT going to mess with Infobox thoroughbred racehorse! To do so will impact something over 3,500 race horse articles! That is an issue for WikiProject Horse Racing! EEEEEKKK! =:-O --MTBW
    The addition of the scientific name to the Thoroughbred infobox caused a minor kerfuffle in 2010, but User:Andy Mabbett justified the addition because it would help search engines determine the page was about a horse (seemed silly to me at the time too as the page text often says "horse" at least once). The template can easily be changed if there is no objection to removing the scientific name.- Froggerlaura
    My own thinking (?) is that it's kind of irrelevant to the FAC for this particular animal, and an issue to be taken up at WP Horse racing. I personally have no strong feelings about that particular bit of info one way or the other. -- Montanabw
    I've fixed the spacing. It's not going to hold up my support in this FAC, but I do think the species mention is something that needs to be addressed at some point, even if not in this review. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it was FIXED by Froggerlaura, who is one of the leading editors over at WP Horse Racing. --Montanabw
  • "to the historic Calumet property early 2013" -> "in early 2013"?
    FIXED--MTBW
  • Be very careful about using horse-racing terminology without link or explanation - for example, what do you mean by "broke"?
    Dang! I thought we caught most of that. User:Froggerlaura, we need another definition! In the meantime, Nikki, "broke" in this context is when the horse starts running out of the starting gate. I reworded a couple places to avoid using the word, but we can only go so far without sounding like ignoramuses to horse racing people, so if we get a link to the defnitions, for the rest, will that be OK? --MTBW
    Fixed by Froggerlaura --MTBW
    Yes, linking's fine if there's a link available. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure dates are consistently M D, Y, mid-sentence (watch commas)
    Which ones did we screw up? (eyes....bleary... can't see...) --MTBW "FIxed by Froggerlaura (--MTBW)
  • "mile and one-sixteenth" first, then "mile-and-one-sixteenth" later - use consistent hyphenation
    Fixed. Killed hyphens --MTBW
  • Can we provide metric translations for mile and yard measurements?
    Am I correct that we only have that in one spot, for the Lecompte? User:Froggerlaura, how shall we do this? (Version in chart has convert template and is accurate, but more complex) --MTBW Fixed by just doing a manual convert based on the template numbers down in the chart. --MTBW
    There's also the mile and one-sixteenth for CashCall. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull-quotes: why is one attribution Roman and the next two italic?
    Fixed. --MTBW
  • How many points are needed to be eligible for the Derby?
    It's in the source cited and explained at the wikilinked article. There are no set points, just the top 20 horses with the most points get to go. Complicated formula and they changed it this year, (It used to be purse money won, not points) it's like figuring out which college football team is the national champion (i.e. I don't get it, I just understand how to add it up...) --MTBW
  • "triple digit" -> "triple-digit"
    Fixed. --MTBW
  • "winners circle" or "winner's circle"?
    Fixed. --MTBW
  • "Stevens knew better than to argue about it" - if not a direct quote, this seems a bit colloquial
    His said he didn't want to "fight" with the horse. It is a bit colloquial, but is this a problem? I'm kind of tired of quoting Stevens on everything --MTBW
    What about "Stevens knew better than to fight him"? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can live with that if you don't think it is a too-close paraphrase or something like that --MTBW
  • "due owing to his win"?
    Fixed by another editor. --MTBW
  • Text says CashCall track is synthetic, chart says dirt - which is correct?
    It's a synthetic "cushion track" aka "All Weather Track" I'll tweak the chart (Froggerlaura, is the abbreviation OK?) --MTBW Fixed --Froggerlaura go to that before me. --MTBW
  • What is "LeCompte"? Do you mean Lecomte?
    Fixed. (Can't you just say, "inconsistency in capitalization?") --MTBW
    Er, no, because though caps are fixed there's still Lecomte and Lecompte (note spelling). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why it is helpful to just point out the error instead of doing the "now, you have to find your own mistake, kiddies" thing (Seriously, I'm over 50 and work on a laptop, and yes I'm in denial about my need for bifocals but do you know how small the editing box can be late in the day???  :-P )
  • "Another of Cee's Song offspring" -> "Another Cee's Song offspring" or "Another of Cee's Song's offspring". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. --MTBW
    I think maybe this one got missed...Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Another Cee's Song offspring" to avoid double 's.--Froggerlaura
    Is this fixed now, Nikki? --Montanabw

OK, other than a couple things that I think Froggerlaura is better positioned to fix (noted above), did I get everything that was a nitpick? Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, a few replies inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, do we have them now?? Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth Changed to Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally a well-written article, though I am more used to British English phraseology about racing. A few points -
  • Not many images?
    I know, I've been digging madly for some. Everything is under copyright, even on Flickr, except for the stuff released by the State of Maryland for the Preakness. Can't even find a free image of the sire and dam. Froggerlaura is a genius at finding stuff and I think this is all she found too. Open to ideas, but we may be stuck with this. --Montanabw
  • "Oxbow has a reputation as a front-runner who is difficult to rate during his races." - What do you mean by "rate" here?
    Control speed, especially to slow down. Thoughts on rephrasing that is not a "little kiddies, a stallion is a boy horse" tone that will make us sound like amateurs? (smiles) --Montanabw
    Follow up: Froggerlaura defined the words in the glossary and linked them. Will that do?? --Montanabw
    That's helpful Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ridden for the second time by Jon Court, he went off as the fourth choice and 5–1 and had a favorable number four post position." - Do you mean "at 5-1" rather than "and 5-1"?
    Typo. Fixed. Good catch. --Montanabw
  • "Five weeks later, Oxbow was entered in the Grade II Risen Star Stakes at mile and one-sixteenth." - The bald "at" seems awkward to me.
    Rephrased. Better? --Montanabw
  • "I've Struck a Nerve won at 135–1." - It is a bit unfortunate that this sentence starts as it does. Could you rearrange it as "The winner at 135-1 was I've Struck a Nerve" (or write an article "I've Struck a Nerve (horse)" and wikilink it ;)).
    Rephrased, not quite as you have it but similar. Better? (Horse probably won't be worth his own article, most likely) Also no objection if you want to word it your way --Montanabw
  • "The other horses on or near the early lead finished 12th or lower." - this is a bit awkwardly expressed.
    True. Any thoughts how to best fix that? I redid it a couple of times to get it that far, my brain isn't working. --Montanabw
    "None of the other horses competing for the lead near the start had finished better than twelfth" ? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    REWORDED: "None of the other horses out front early finished better than twelfth." (full context: "...observers noted that he was the only horse that ran near the front of the pack in the opening half-mile to also finish in the top six;[fn] none of the other horses out front early finished better than twelfth.") Will that work? (And feel free to just tweak a word or two if you want.) --Montanabw
  • Same quote - there is inconsistency using "12th" here when elsewhere we have "sixth" etc.
    I think we are doing the MOS rule that one through nine or ten are words and 10/11 and up use numerals. But thoughts? --Montanabw
    Not sure about the MOS rule but I prefer "twelfth" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FIXED to "twelfth." --Montanabw
  • "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness ... although with no evident sign of injury." - Not very grammatical.
    Heeheehee, that was user:Eric Corbett's edit (aka Malleus) LOL! (that said, my version was worse). Basically, the tale is that the jockey got dumped off a horse, though he walked away from the fall, but he didn't ride his scheduled races the following day because he was bruised up and sore, especially his ribs. His X-Rays came back OK, though. It was a big deal because the guy is 50, came out of retirement after seven years off, has a bum knee and is kind of held together with duct tape and baling twine generally. So, if you'd like to help shake my brain loose on how to elegantly and concisely explain all that, I'm open to suggestions. --Montanabw
    "Although he appeared uninjured, there were concerns about Stevens' fitness as he had been thrown from a horse at Hollywood Park the previous week." ? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    REWORDED: (As he was banged up enough to miss the next day's races, I never was comfortable saying "no" injury) "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness, as he missed races at Hollywood Park after being thrown from a horse the previous week, but x-rays came back clear" IS that better or worse? --Montanabw
    My inclination would be to forget about the x-rays (and Hollywood Park?) and just say "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness as he had missed races after being thrown from a horse the previous week." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut Hollywood park, trying to keep the point that he was "given the all clear" to ride. Trying "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness as he had missed races after being thrown from a horse the previous week, but medical tests showed no evident sign of injury." Any better? --Montanabw
  • I am happy with the article now and have changed my "Comments" to "Support" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - knowing jack about horse racing, just some quick comments and questions:

  • lead "... best known for winning the second [jewel] in the American Triple Crown ..." - is "jewel" journalese or a common term for this race series?
    Pretty common term used to refer to the Triple Crown races in the US [2]. Derby being first, Preakness second and Belmont third. I could add the term to the racing terminology page if unclear. --Froggerlaura
  • Background "He was bred by Richard Santulli's New Jersey-based Colts Neck Stables,[2][3][4] ..." - does this statement really need 3 sources?
    Montanabw clarified on talk page during PR. The three sources are needed because they each contain a part of the information- Santulli was breeder, Colts Neck Stables is the name of his operation and it is located in New Jersey. A single reference doesn't have all the parts.--Froggerlaura
  • Background Notes "Kelley is [believed to be] a member of the Calumet Investment Group" - why the weasel here? Source 9 says "He is a member of that investment group", Source 10 calls him "owner" without any reservation. Is there some missing background info?
    Removed "believed to be" from notes per sources. I think the uncertainty is that he is owner/chair of the investment group but is somehow leasing the farm to himself for tax purposes (OR alert :)--Froggerlaura
  • "[He started from] the far outside post, at number ten. [He broke from] ..." ==> Doesn't flow well, but i have no better idea to offer.
    Linked post position to make sentence flow- "He started from the far outside at the tenth post position and broke from the gate in seventh but jumped out to the lead within a few strides and led going into the turn by a half length." --Froggerlaura
  • "Oxbow moved with ..." ==> would " ... was moved ..." sound more natural for a horse?
    Changed to was moved.--Froggerlaura
  • Preakness Stakes "The victory was Lukas' sixth career Preakness ..." ==> "career" is redundant here
  • Defer to Montanabw on this one. I think "career" is used here to refer to wins only accrued by him. I don't remember if he had wins in partnership or apprenticeship with anyone else.--Froggerlaura
  • "Career win" seems to be common racing lingo; probably because people can change jobs. Indicates his number of wins as a trainer. In theory, he could also own a horse that won but not have trained it. Or, another example, Stevens was briefly a trainer during his retirement, though I don't think he won any really big races as a trainer, one needs to clarify what he won as a jockey versus in some other capacity. --Montanabw
  • "It [also] was ..." ==> "Also" is redundant for obvious lists. The article has "X was" three times in a row here - suggest to rephrase the middle sentence.
    Removed also and tried to change "it was"--Froggerlaura

With little topic knowledge i could easily follow the content, no obvious gaps in coverage. No concerns about referencing or structure. I haven't checked racing statistics and pedigree, leaving that to the experts. GermanJoe (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Oxbow is ... ridden in his Triple Crown races by Gary Stevens." Since Oxbow won't be riding in any more Triple Crown races, shouldn't "was" be added before "ridden"?
    Changed to was --Froggerlaura
  • Background: The space after ref 1, by Awesome Again, should be removed.
    Removed extra space --Froggerlaura
  • Pedigree: The Awesome Again and Breeders' Cup Classic links are repeated from earlier in the article, and are good candidates to be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't remove. Linking once per section, especially when subject has own article, is okay. --Froggerlaura
    Spotted two wls to Breeders' Cup in the same section, tossed all but one there. Went ahead and tossed the one to Awesome Again, as it can go in that context (though technically I agree with Froggerlaura)--Montanabw

Delegate comments

  • Duplinks: You have a fair few of these, pls review with the checker.
  • Removed most of the offending wikilinks.--Froggerlaura
  • Spotcheck of sources:
  • FN1c: Not particularly controversial I suppose but I can't see in the source where Awesome Again is identified as Canadian-bred, nor the winner of a particular year of the Breeder's Cup Classic...
  • FN38a: Okay.
  • FN35b: Okay.
  • FN47: Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Froggerlaura, I think EVERYTHING is done except for Ian Rose's comments. I've been working with Nikkimaria on addressing all her stuff, and everyone else has also given us the green light. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian, I restored a couple of links Froggerlaura deleted because they were the only links to define certain words ("broke", "off the pace") that others had asked us to link or define; they both go to the glossary, but different words in different sections. I think/hope that's OK. I think Froggerlaura got everything else? Let us know if we need to fix anything further. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that does it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU EVERYONE! Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 14 July 2013 (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/Oxbow_(horse)/archive1&oldid=1138468572"