Talk:Rosie Napravnik/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * As wins in the info box is so fluid (it looks like she's won another ten races since you last checked that ref), it may be useful to give an as of date for that statistic.
 * FIXED --MTBW
 * In the info box there are some horses unlinked and some with red links. Some of the red linked horses aren't linked in the article.  All a bit inconsistent, is there a method behind the various linking techniques?
 * Yeah, it's the ones we ought to be making articles for but haven't yet. Not a moral issue either way, but when we know a horse will pop up in a bunch of articles once an article is created, it's handy not to have to go do a search at the time.  --MTBW
 * I'm just looking for consistent linking, which I think you've now done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not convinced there's a need to link pony (we don't link horse)...
 * OK, but if someone else wants it linked later, I'm making you fix it! LOL!  --MTBW
 * Certainly no need to link documentary.
 * OK, per above ;-) --MTBW
 * "At age 13" perhaps this is a US Eng thing, but I'd say "At the age of 13" or "Aged 13..." but not "At age 13".
 * I like the longer form, tweaked the earlier tweak. --MTBW
 * "She took a year off from working with horses at 15" that "at 15" is in a rather odd place in the sentence.
 * Looks like Nikkimaria got that one --MTBW
 * I would expand GED, I have no clue what this is.
 * GED is from my experience far more commonly used than the expanded version, particularly given how much people actually disagree about what the expanded version is. I've added a parenthetical explanation, does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. GED is certainly not common in Brit Eng.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I personally just loathe parenthetical explanations in article space (though I use them exhaustively on talk pages) so rephrased to avoid it. Open to further tweaking there. --MTBW


 * "riding Ringofdiamonds for Small" could be confusing, like the horse is called "Ringofdiamonds for Small"...
 * Tweaked it.  FIXED --MTBW
 * "again the most successful rider in Maryland" when was she previously the most successful rider in Maryland? And is that all riders or just female riders?
 * All riders in Maryland, she won best rider at all the meets in 2006 as well, but it's easy enough to just toss the "again." The stats would have to be crunched, and not really needed.--MTBW
 * "to that date,[23] She also had a close second place finish in the 2011 Kentucky Oaks[24] In " some punctuation issues here.
 * Tweaked. Better?  Feel free to hack at it if you can improve it further. --MTBW
 * "In July of that..." mega sentence, would break it up a little.
 * Fixed. Better?  --MTBW
 * " record for a female jockey previously held by Julie Krone.[1] Sports analysts viewed her as the most successful woman jockey since Krone" given the former, the latter isn't really surprising. I would say, with no expertise at all, that surpassing Krone's record it made her the most successful since Krone...
 * I'm open to a rephrase or consolidation, I tweaked it a wee bit but there's a nuance there -- I fully anticipate someone to scream WP:SYNTH at me if I say she's the most successful jockey since Krone because she broke the win and earning record. (Too effeing many trolls on WP, I'm twitchy).  That second source does the synthesis for me and it's that source I want to keep (the point is that you ain't "great" until the pundits say you are great, regardless of which records you break.) Ideas?  --MTBW
 * It's no biggie for me, it just seemed like (as Basil Fawlty would say) "stating the bleeding obvious". But that's just my POV, and there's nothing wrong with what you've written.  Perhaps I overanalysed it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Several refs don't have an accessdate, some do, is that deliberate?
 * Suspect it's a function of having different people adding refs. I prefer not to include accessdates when there is a publication date;. MBW, do you care either way? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the reason, I don't care deeply, I usuallyl just do what the MOS gods dictate and encourage consistency. That said, some news links die or get archived and accessdate allows WayBack a better chance of finding the "right" version. TRM, do you want to just break the tie and tell us what you'd prefer to see.  It's a GAN, so not a moral issue like it could be at FAC. --MTBW

Again, good work, but a few tweaks needed before I promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * New York Times should be The New York Times.
 * I think Nikkimaria got that one. --MTBW


 * Addressed all, some questions. Let me know if I fixed everything I thought I fixed.   Montanabw (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)