Talk:Katherine Ritvo/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	While not a GA requirement, fn5 shows an unexplained redirect. You may want to consider going to an archived version of that link. It still works and won't affect passage, it is just a better way to go.
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~Fn14 is synth, if used to support Ritvo being the 14th woman trainer in the Preakness. It does not mention Ritvo at all. That statement either needs another source or it should be removed.~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~Why is there a gap in her training from 1999-2002? The later gap due to her heart condition is explained, but not the earlier one.~~ If it is not available, it's not available.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above comment.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Both images are screenshots of a youtube video that is properly licensed under CC 3.0, and the license status was verified by an admin.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold for Items 2c, 3a & 3b.~~

Answers:

2b: I'll fix the links and refs stuff and get back here when I'm done with that. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts on my replies to the other things below. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Follow up: I think I fixed fn5 (if you meant the Sun-Sentinel article cited three times?) At least it's working for me... Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the Sun-Sentinel article. The link still works, but when you run the external link check, it shows a 301 (moved permanently) message. This normally occurs before a newspaper archives the article, and then the link goes dead. When I see that on mine, I normally go to a web archive (Wayback Machine or similar) as the primary and show where the original was. You don't have to do it for a GA, but it just keeps the link accessible. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Worth a try; sometimes these articles go and hide behind a paywall, too. Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2c: I can chop the bit about the Preakness, I was unable to find anything addressing her directly. The source at Preakness.com was two weeks before the 2011 race, though. So accurate as to how many before her... would it work better to say "only 13 women trainers had saddled a starter prior to the 2011 Preakness? It's your call... Can't find anything like the Belmont guide, and Ritvo wasn't in the news much for the Preakness because the horse hadn't won. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the "only 13 women ..." idea. The source directly supports that assertion. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked. Will that work? Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3a: Clearly, it was indirectly due to her heart condition, as one of the sources notes her "recurring fatigue" from 1998 or so on, and then the diagnosis in late 2000/early 2001, but I cannot find a source that says that in so many words (though I can look again). If you compare hr training record here (click on "All Years") to that ofher husband's here, clearly, she cut back and he picked up the slack from 1999 on. But, as you pointed out, I think we're venturing into SYNTH territory to speculate. Do you have suggestions as to where to go with this? I'm willing to do what I can. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may just have to leave it out. It would have been nice if we could have found something on it, but you can only work with what has been published. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of minor rewording, does that help any? Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]