Template:Did you know nominations/Organized Horse Fighting


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Organized Horse Fighting

 * ALT0: ... that Organized Horse Fighting has been a spectator sport in some parts of China for 500 years?
 * ALT1: ... that Organized Horse Fighting has been a traditional Miao Chinese New Year observance for 500 years?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Plum cake 1

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 19:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC).


 * DYK checklist template


 * The source for the hook is titled "Villages in southern China ring in Chinese New Year with horse fighting" and says "In several small villages throughout the southern regions of China, a grisly 500-year-old tradition kicked off the Chinese New Year last week" above and below which are pictures of two horses fighting. It then proceeds to quote spectators of the fight. I guess I'm not sure what's "implied rather than stated" about that; it seems rather unambiguous. LavaBaron (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not challenge your source as ambiguous, but your text. "Organized horse fighting is a traditional observance of Chinese New Year among the Miao people that has occurred for more than 500 years." is scarcely a straightforward rendering of your quoted source above. For one thing, the source statement is referring to the past while the hook opts for the present. Then there is the little matter of the nation of China not being mentioned in the text sentence. These are grounds to decline the nomination. I have chosen to offer the opportunity for correction instead.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "Then there is the little matter of the nation of China not being mentioned in the text sentence." --> "In several small villages throughout the southern regions of China" - with appreciation for Georgejdorner's review, I think we need a new reviewer with a firmer attention to detail. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg If another reviewer is desired, I will complete my review. It is unfortunate I must decline this nomination. Reason: ALTO hook information is missing from article, though not from source, and ALT1 is unapproved.02:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg new reviewer needed LavaBaron (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Soz, this is quite a terrible article. Subject matter is legitimate (by the way, please write is as organised horse fighting) but some of the sources are not acceptable, especially those from animal love groups. They are not RS. The article as a whole is technically long enough -- barely -- and that is all thanks to padding. Would classify this as a pseudo-stub if I could. Much more work needs to be done, folks. Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "Animal love groups?" Also, you're not being asked to GAN-review this. You're being asked to rate it on the DYK qualifications: copyvio, hook interest, hook citability, length, newness. Since you haven't done that, and your tone ("this is quite a terrible article" and "animal love groups") indicates you have no intention to do so, this will need a new reviewer familiar with the DYK process. LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Re-review: Article and QPQ requirements met. No issues with article. Sources did show both perspectives on this matter. Alt1 could be improved to be more interesting. I recommend "500 years" to be part of the facts, which is also indicated in the source given. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Surely "organized horse fighting", not "Organized Horse Fighting"? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My first time posting here - please be gentle with me! Both the suggestions by the nominator relate to China, but this happens in several other countries.  I would like to propose an alternative hook to address this. "...organized horse fighting is staged for the purposes of betting or entertainment". DrChrissy (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo - updated Hook 1 with your recommendation. LavaBaron (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually meant ALT1 (Hook 2). :) - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I've updated ALT1 as well. However, why is the page called Organized horse fighting? As opposed to Disorganized horse fighting? Surely simply "Horse fighting", by analogy with Dog fighting and Cock fighting? Ping: User:Mailer diablo, User:LavaBaron. Intelligent  sium  22:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A very good point. I guess it is because dog fighting and cock fighting are known so well to be organised that the term is redundant for those.  For consistency, I would agree that the article is moved to Horse fighting. DrChrissy (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It's now good to go on my part. I think it's ready once the title is addressed (whether it goes either way). - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick question: should "Organized Horse Fighting" be capitalized? asked this same question last month, but it doesn't look like this was ever addressed. I'm pinging, , and . Thanks in advance for looking at this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to the lower case concern, the "Organised" needs to be dropped. The article name should be Horse fighting, consistent with e.g. Dog fighting and Cow fighting. DrChrissy (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is in the naming convention. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)