Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Secretariat (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 via FACBot (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 [1].

Secretariat (horse)

edit
Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) User:Jlvsclrk talk[reply]

This article is about the famous racehorse Secretariat, Triple Crown winner and one of the finest racehorses in history. This is a high-importance article for WikiProject Horse racing and one that has has a substantial amount of work put in by many editors, not just the nominators. We welcome a comprehensive review for an article on a topic important to the project. Thank you. Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by White Arabian Filly

edit

I don't think I've ever made more than one or two minor edits here, so I should be able to review neutrally. I have a few comments, some of them sort of piddly:

  • The very first sentence in the lead is sort of a run-on, listing half the things he ever did. Is there a way to split it up?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • The last line in the lead, the one about him being honored many years after his death, reads in a promotional way to me.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk, and a few further tweaks by MTBW
  • The background section uses an awful lot of parentheses, and some of the details, like the mares sent to be bred, can go outside parentheses.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk (minor additional ce by MTBW)
  • On Penny Chenery's quote in the Whitney Stakes section, the closing quote mark is missing.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • Is there a reason why it's written "honoured" in the part about the Canadian International? (Was it done intentionally?)
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think it would look better for the part about the heart weight to say, "(8.5 lbs, or 3.9 kgs)" instead of double parentheses around the kilograms, which looks clunky.
    Can't be helped, the {{convert}} template does that. --MTBW
  • Where it says Secretariat's birthplace is on the NRHP, I guess that means the whole farm The Meadow, but the way it's written now it sounds sort of like the exact spot is what's on the NRHP.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

—White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the anatomy photo
    FIXED by MTBW (large enough? It's 1.5x can go bigger if needed)
  • Statue caption should end in a period
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • File:Owner_Meadow_Stable.svg: can we include a source in the description to verify the accuracy of the design?
    Source added [2]. --MTBW
  • File:1973_Kentucky_Derby_Secretariat.jpg: could you add something to the description about point 2, and what do you mean by "connections"? Same with File:Secretariat_1973_Preakness_Winners_Circle.jpg, and having two non-free images with the exact same rationale reduces the justification for including them - suggest expanding or reframing
    "Connections" are the people associated with the horse. I will tweak that phrasing at the image page. I also changed the rationale for the Kentucky Derby image, does that improve matters? —MTBW
  • File:Secretariat_statue.jpg: what is the copyright status of the photo, and are we sure about the copyright expiration? Skeaping seems to have made several later copies of the statue.
    The base of the statue itself says "1974" in the image, so the original work is within the change in the law, but the statue is a 1988 copy source of the 1974 original. As Jlvsclrk stated, s/he took the image. We could replace it with the Saratoga image, but it would be nice if we could keep the Belmont one, because that's the most famous version and a better photo. Given that we are dealing with a 1988 copy of a 1974 original statue, I am going to ping Wehwalt for his take on how we handle a copy where the original is in the public domain. —MTBW

— Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm hoping Montanabw can deal with 1, 3, 4. I fixed 2. re 5 - the photo was taken by me and is public domain. I'm sure I don't understand American copyright law on the statue itself but the original was produced in 1974 and is now at the Hall of Fame. The version in the picture is a replica installed in 1988 as noted in the article. I have a picture of the original too, but it doesn't have the blanket of carnations they place on Belmont Day. The original is one of the few objects at the Hall of Fame that you're allowed to photograph so I'm pretty sure it's fine. Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I answered further questions, let us know if there are further fixes! Thanks everyone for your reviews. Nikkimaria, White Arabian Filly, pinging you Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlvsclrk: Could you add whichever of {{CC-0}} or {{PD-self}} you prefer to the photo? Montana, could you add a quick statement re:point 2 on the two screenshots? That will just leave the copyright expiration issue, which is complicated by the "republication". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think montanabw originally suggested that particular license because of the subject matter. Assuming the statue is fair game, I've changed the license to self|cc-by-sa-4.0 (share alike). Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I added the Point 2 rationale to the screenshots, had to tweak the templates a little to make it appear (there was a "commercial" parameter on the images, but it wasn't showing up). On the Secretariat statue, Jlvsclrk added an appropriate photographer's release, but the copyright on the statue itself is held by the artist and I think it's PD-no-notice, so I re-added that template as well, I think we need both. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We would need tags for both the photo and the statue, yes. I'm not sure though that PD-no-notice is the appropriate tag, and would like to hear from Wehwalt or others on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published in 1974, I guess the question is, is there a copyright notice on the statue? If there is not, the tag is good, if there is, and it is proper, you're out of luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright notice on the statue. Below the sculptor's name and date on the base of the statue is one more line, cut off in my image, that reads "Gift of Paul Mellon to the National Museum of Racing at Saratoga". Wehwalt, does the fact that the statue in question is a copy (installed at Belmont in 1988, produced who knows when) affect matters, or is it the date of the original (or the mold with which both copies were created I suppose) that matters? Just want to be sure! Jlvsclrk (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't think so, if they are exact copies. It's original publication before 1978 without a copyright notice that creates the lack of a copyright. Are we confident the original lacks a copyright notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to a picture that shows the full statue - no copyright notice. (Another pic showing the reverse angle, no notice on it either. Original has identical wording. Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I think the tag is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we'll go with that then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had a fair number of comments at the peer review and did some editing myself. Seems an excellent article on a significant figure, both in the sports world and culturally. One of the earliest sports events I remember watching was the Belmont that year. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the GA reviewer. It is very well-written, and worthy of being a FA. The GA review was a bit more stringent than customary but whatever needed tweaking beyond that appears to have been handled. After GA promotion, it went through yet another review by Wehwalt. If it needed any further tweaking, I figured it might be in the citations images but it appears Nikkimaria did a good job with that part of the review as she so often does. Atsme📞📧 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Atsme, I looked at images and not citations here, is that what you meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies. My brain tripped over an archived memory. Atsme📞📧 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-written. A few comments on the lead and first few sections (disclosure: the nominator is a fellow member of the Signpost board).

  • Being new to this topic, I'm unused to seeing "he" and "who" used to refer to the horse; I guess so.
    Standard in the horse world
  • Isn't it an indictment on the Foundation's engeering and products division that we still have to put up with ugly, clunky, large fractions in inline text. I suppose the guideline for conversion to international units doesn't apply (?). There are inches in the table, unconverted.
    I was wondering about that. FIXED by Jlvsclrk
    • The {{frac}} template sometimes helps. MTBW
  • "United States" should definitely not be linked. "$" is linked ... that's not normal, and as a reader I'd rather know that it's "US$" than have to hover over the $ to find out. Also, the dollar symbol hangs below the line.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "possessed" ... "had" wouldn't do?
    "had" just feels like a weak verb to me. Will change if it bothers you but "possessed" just seems more appropriate to me. *shrug*
  • "In order to"—please, "To".
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "wind up with" ... slightly informal, and twice in a sentence.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think MOS wants "In spring 1989", and "fall 1969".
    that really doesn't scan right to me. Could replace "the spring of 1969" with the "the 1969 breeding season" if that reads better.
  • as-yet-unborn
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "and the as-yet unborn 1970 foal of Somethingroyal; the latter foal turned out to be Secretariat"—could it be just ", which turned out ..."?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "nursed" means "suckled", I guess.
    Yes. It's also a widely used term in the horse business. ("Stands and nurses" is often the point at which stud fees become payable)
    • And in US English generally, we nurse our human babies too. --MTBW
  • "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes.
    first part FIXED by Jlvsclrk. Second part - not sure what the error is
  • "Chenery got her first look at the foal and made a one word entry in her notebook:"—maybe, but it's on the informal edge of the envelope, I think. Hyphen. "Chenery first saw the foal and made a one-word entry in her notebook:"?
    Did you mean it would be better if we replaced the colon with a hyphen?
  • Autumn, or fall? We have both.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "the latter"—isn't that applicable where there are two items? "the last"?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

Tony (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see interspersed comments above. Should we also add meters when mentioning race distances? Do you think 9.5 furlongs reads better than 1+3⁄16 miles? As a North American horse racing fan, I find the former odd, but if it's easier for non-horseracing people to understand, I'm all for it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have the conversion table, we do a three-way conversion of {{hands}}. We could add 9.5 furlongs 1+3⁄16 miles (1.9 km) too if someone wants us to, but there does become a point at which it is pretty clunky. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a "conversion of racing distances" chart (based on the one in the American Pharoah article) for the racing statistics section.
  • @Tony1:: Have all your concerns been addressed? Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the upper sections, yes. I'm unsure about conversion rules and conventions, but was just pointing it out. "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." — "not sure what the error is" ... more words than necessary. Tony (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Tony, I did your suggested wording change - agree it reads better. My question was on the later part of the bullet where you said "Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes." That's where I'm not sure what the error is - the comma I see is followed by a 'he said' construction. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jlv, MOS gives this example: "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce., and says it's irrespective of the variety of English. Tony (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh, I've been doing this wrong for my entire life. Spot checking, so are most of the sources. Learn something every day. Will fix this and a few other uses in the article. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jlv, it's been the subject of bitter disputes at MOS, but whenever someone proposes to change the rule, there's a groundswell of opposition. You'll find most US publishers use the inside-the-quote-mark method. Many news outlets outside the US also use it. Direct quotations in novels are rendered that way before "she said", etc, by many publishers everywhere. The US Council of Science Editors insists on outside the quotemarks (the so-called "logical" method), to avoid "misquoting" the punctuation where it wasn't in the source. Normal UK and Commonwealth practice is outside the quotemarks ("logical" method), to avoid "misquoting" the punctuation where it wasn't in the source. Please don't change your personal practice outside WP! Tony (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tony (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

edit

Thank you for a spirited article on a wonderful creature!

  • I'd mention both his parents in the lead, or at least a bit sooner in "Background". Came as a little surprise to me who his mother was, after the coin-tossing stories. Or is that intended? - I should have looked at the infobox where they are ;)
    • LOL. The background section on his breeding has sometimes read like a mystery novel. Fun to read but... LMK if it reads better with the new opening sentence in the background. I don't know if we can add something to the intro without disrupting the flow and maintaining the interest level. - Jlvsclrk
  • The quoted poem is nice, but I don't see the connection.
  • "croup" should be linked the first time.
    • FIXED - jlvsclrk

Need to go for now, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Appearance and conformation": I could imagine the image higher, to have the table less squeezed on a small screen, - also good to have the image where the terms are mentioned first.
    • On my screen, moving up the horse anatomy chart runs into the quote box in the preceding section, our intent was to have the table and the chart side-by-side. Open to suggestions for improvement, but I'm not quite sure if there is a solution...
      • OK now
  • In "Belmont Stakes": In the quote box, I think no quotation marks are necessary, but a full stop (or three, if it's not the end of the sentence).
    • FIXED - jlvsclrk

That's all. Good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt I think we've addressed your concerns. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Might be worthwhile to source some of the superlatives in the lead, such as the "icon" phrase
    • everything we say in the lead is supported in the body of the article. The icon phrase comes from the last paragraph before the start of the Belmont Stakes where it talks about him becoming a cultural phenomenon.
  • Blood-Horse should be italicized in article text (Belmont section)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • "equivalent to $7,019,357 in 2015" - per the note at the top of {{inflation}}, not sure it's appropriate to have this unsourced here
    • I'll just remove. not sure it adds anything. jlvsclrk
  • "The Sanford was the only race in his career in which Secretariat was not the betting favorite" - source?
    • The past performance table posted on secretariat.com (but sourced from the Daily Racing Form) indicates if a horse is the favorite in a given race with a star by the odds (shown as *.40 for example), and the Sanford is the only one where he wasn't. Is it synth to turn this coding into the comment used? I suppose a more direct translation of the chart data would lead to the comment "Secretariat was the favorite in every race except the Sanford." Alternatively, I could add the stars to the table with a note at the bottom on what it means. Any suggestions.
      • I fixed this to put a source in the note, the rest is simple analysis..Nikkimaria
  • Use a consistent date format
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Be consistent in whether books include location of publication - some do, some don't. If you do include them, be consistent in how you format state (eg. Ky. vs VA)
    • fixed (though seems to be a problem with the ISBN database)
  • FN8 needs page number. Same with FN20, 57, 140
    • FN8 - I don't have access to the book originally used as source, so I changed to use Bill Nack's book. Also clarified that it was two mares being sent, not necessarily two foals being produced (since this matters in the paragraph that follows)
    • FN20 - now split into 3 refs to get appropriate page #s. FN57 - "Sham..." don't have access to this book and unfortunately the bit is not in the sample online chapter. Should I delete the sentence, or change to something like "..., Secretariat's chances in the Kentucky Derby became the subject of much debate in the media." Can reference this to Woolfe and Nack. FN140 - don't have access to the book. I found a few skeptical online sources to use though
      • Yes. I'm not sure that the sites added since the last review would qualify as high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume this is regarding the sources for the last paragraph about the X-factor theory. Some background here first. The "pro" X-factor club are online and vocal, while most breeding professionals seem dismissive (thinking it grossly over-simplistic) to the point of not writing much about it. So we feel it necessary to include since its something that some people feel VERY strongly about (as montanabw puts it, if we take it out, they'll just put it back in), but at the same time express the doubt. For alternate sources, I first looked at wiki's Circulatory_system_of_the_horse#X_factor, which uses two sources on the doubt side, one of which addresses the topic vary narrowly and is useless in our context, and the other which can no longer be found. Such is the internet! So I went looking for other sources and believe Porter writing in his column at the bloodhorse is a very high quality source - he's a professional pedigree analyst speaking in an area of his expertise. The Sophia Stallions site is for a professional breeding operation and the article is very well written so I thought it okay to include. I just found another profound dissent from "pedigreegoddess" Anne Peters (she really is an expert, though the URL is pretty funny). http://www.pedigreegoddess.com/PedigreeTheory/X%20Factor.htm - would this latter work better?
          • The book cited was added by someone who apparently had a hardcopy, I can't recall who, but without a page number and as we can't access the snippet view, we have to go with what exists. The Blood Horse cite is solid. The other isn't great, but itself does cite third-party sources. I agree that Anne Peters' site is a professional page, not just someone's random blog and as such an RS; that said, she doesn't cite her source material for her "debunking" claims, which limits the degree to which we can use it. Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you include "www" in website names, other times not - suggest consistently not doing so
    • fixed jlvsclrk
      • Fixed a couple more --MTBW
  • Find-A-Grave is not a high-quality reliable source, nor is IMDB
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Check your use of |publisher= and |work= and synonyms throughout - some things are italicized that shouldn't be (eg Bluefield College, FN18), while others are not that should be (eg The Atlantic, FN84)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
      • Not entirely. Generally speaking, if things aren't actual publications they shouldn't be italicized. Examples include Arlington or Meadow Event Park. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • wiki markup automatically italicizes website= , so I'll change these back to xyz.com
  • FN46: news.google.com isn't the work, it's a republishing service - include the original source details, and then if you want to you can use |via= (but if you're going to, that should also be done consistently)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed or useful for Google Books, but you should be consistent in whether you use them
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Sometimes you use New York Times, sometimes The New York Times - either is fine but again should be consistent. Same with Blood-Horse vs The Blood-Horse, etc
    • think I got them all jlvsclrk
  • FN51 is italicizing date and shouldn't, and publication title is missing
    • fixed
  • AP should generally be credited using |agency= not |author=
    • fixed
  • What makes ilovehorses.net a high-quality reliable source?
    • snort. removed since wasn't needed - everything was in the other source, but it was a very interesting article!
      • As an aside, its primary value was that it had a photo of the horse. In case anyone doubted it... MTBW
  • Is there a difference between news/periodical refs that use website name )eg. latimes.com) and those that use the actual publication title? If not, should be consistent, and I'd suggest doing the latter.
    • I've changed to the latter, unless the website itself uses ".com". For example, thestar.com is titled as such as the page, and you only see Toronto Star in the end section. wonder if its a legal thing?
      • I went ahead and added paper name, even there, as for some reason all the papers are doing that... --MTBW
  • FN75 and 78 are to the same website so should have the same formatting
    • fixed
  • FN136: would make sense to cite the original source directly
    • changed source
  • FN138 should be converted to a template to match the rest of the book citations
    • done
  • FN151 has a doubled archival statement
    • now FN152. fixed

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few duplinks in the article. I won't hold up promotion over them but pls review and see what you can do without (use this script to highlight the duplicates). Also for the block quotes I think we can do without the {{prettyquote}} template and just use {{quote}}. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (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/Secretariat_(horse)/archive1&oldid=1083676445"