Talk:2018 Kentucky Derby/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
my review comments for this article:
 * What is a Beyer Speed Figure for all non-Horse Racing people
 * Hmm, even me too I am not horse-racing aficionado, just developing interest. But I think since the concept is directly linked, that is enough to satisfy any curious reader when they click and see for themselves. That's the whole point of link. It was mentioned just tangentially for the favorite and doesn't need to be explained in details just like National Thoroughbred Racing Association. If we were to do that, I am afraid for the article to be derailing into needless details and lose focus.


 * Japan Road were accepted. Change it to was
 * Fixed. It was an oversight


 * In the Derby, he would have to surmount what came to be known as "Curse of Apollo" - Needs a little bit of rewording there as "would" is sort of future tense in this sentence.
 * Reworded


 * What is the NTRA?
 * Expanded


 * Mendelssohn started his racing career on the turf, and" - Don't need comma after turf.
 * Fixed


 * Justify drew post position 7 and was installed as the 3-1 morning line favorite by oddsmaker Mike Battaglia - Sounds a little bit trivia and bias towards the favourite here.
 * I thought of rewording this or removing it all together but after reviewing the sources I think, it is not trivia and and is not afoul of DUE. Favorite naturally attracts most of the attention in the race and not showing this in the article may creates false balance. So the article is not biased toward favorite, just "biased" toward what reliable sources are saying. In fact, this specific fact made it to headlines of several new sources BloodHorse, NBCconnecticut, USA Today, UPI and DRF which clearly further show how important it is in relation to this event.


 * Knowing a good start was critical, Justify's jockey Mike Smith used the colt's early speed to gain vantage position near the rail moving into the first turn. - Sounds very news articly with that sentence there.
 * Rephrased


 * Maybe put the Payout into a heading 3 tab as it doesn't really need its own tab for it.
 * Section subsumed into Results heading


 * Maybe add some references from more reliable websites that isn't out there, say the local news from there or one of the big ones.
 * I checked and rechecked the references well. I am not sure whether you think some are not reliable and which are so. All the article content is well summarized and referenced. We all know that an article must not contain all sources that ever mention the subject, just the sufficient to build a detailed article. Some sources that mention this must be left out either because what they reported is just duplication of another or they just contain trivia fact which we need not use. Ask me if I am not clear. Thanks.

There might be more that I will find on a second read. Not Homura (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that is good enough for this to be a good article status here. Not Homura (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I responded to the last issue that I forgot. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That is good and this is now Good Article status. Not Homura (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)