Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mucho Macho Man/archive1


 * 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 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Mucho Macho Man

 * Nominator(s): Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC), User:Tigerboy1966, User:Froggerlaura

This article is about Mucho Macho Man, a racehorse who won the 2013 Breeders' Cup Classic. Not only was he named after the Village People song, but he has a very interesting back story, as do several of the people who work with him, particularly his trainer, who is a heart transplant recipient and the first woman trainer to win the "classic." His story is not yet "complete" as he is racing again for one more year before being retired to stud, but my hope is to run this article as TFA in fall 2014 when the Breeders' Cup races come around again. WikiProject horse racing has been working on this article quite a bit since he won last November, and we had some great input before and at the peer review from Dana Boomer, RexxS, Eric Corbett, and Nikkimaria, among others. Do note that I am a WikiCup participant. Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Montanabw. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nikki. Montanabw (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I haven't a bit of horse sense but simply focused on the prose. Here are a few suggestions.
 * Lack of horse knowledge ≠lack of horse sense! LOL!  Non-horse people comments are actually preferred, lest we lapse into complete gibberish! --MTBW
 * I may lack both. I might be called a cat person. --FT

Lead
 * "In February 2014, anticipating a future career as a breeding stallion, Reeves Thoroughbred Racing sold an undisclosed share in the horse to Frank Stronach on behalf of Stronach's Adena Springs Farms, who also owns Mucho Macho Man's sire, Macho Uno." - Grammar: Reeves has no future as a breeding stallion. Farms is a "which" rather than a "who".
 * Reworded. Better?  --MTBW
 * Looks good. --FT
 * "At the time Reeves purchased the horse, they placed him..." - Maybe "the Reeves" to match "they"?
 * OK, and should that be "Reeves", "Reeveses" or "Reeves' " - I've been ripping my hair out about that structure, I've seen all three used in the press. (sigh)  --MTBW
 * "Reeveses" would be the most common pluralization in USEng, though "Reeves" is still fairly common; "Reeves' " is possessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Save your hair, you could possibly say "the Reeves", or - more politely - repeat both first names, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reeves looks fine to me and more natural than Reeveses. Gerda's option would work too, if you prefer. --FT
 * Used the "Dean and Patti Reeves" option this time, as it's the lead. I still have some hair left!  LOL!  --MTBW

Background Racing career
 * "...Tim Ritvo, who soon after began a job..." - Delete "after"?
 * It was after the horse came to him... I replaced it with who shortly thereafter..." Better? --MTBW
 * Yes, good. --FT
 * "...a job with Gulfstream Park and thus training duties were turned over to Tim's wife and fellow trainer Kathy Ritvo, who trained Mucho Macho Man from his fourth race on." - Full stop after "Park"? Begin next sentence with "Training duties". "Thus" is not quite right since Tim's wife didn't get the job only because Tim moved on. She was qualified in her own right, yes?
 * True, she actually had been training more horses than he had prior to her illness. Fixed. Better? --MTBW
 * Yes. --FT
 * "...all with an ongoing commitment to doing what they think is best for the horse." - Omit this unnecessary boilerplate?
 * Welllllll... open to ideas on how to do this better - and maybe it doesn't have to be in the lede, but I kind of added it - and recently - because these folks actually DO seem very committed; more so than average. What I actually wish I could say is "these people have an unusually high degree of commitment to a single horse that they all are personally quite attached to," but that's WP:SYNTH. Thoughts? --MTBW
 * It's tough to leave out what you know to be true. However, you are stuck with what the sources support. My problem with what I've called "boilerplate", which was not very nice of me, is that the claim sounds like something a public relations firm would say about most any group of professionals. For example, you could say of teachers in a particular school that they "all have an ongoing commitment to doing what they think is best for the student". Specific examples showing "an unusually high degree of commitment" and described as such by an RS would do the trick. Since you've noticed the Reeves' unusual commitment, maybe others have too? Magazine articles about Mucho Macho Man is where I would look for something like this, though you may no doubt have already. --FT
 * You are right that it sounds like what everyone is supposed to say. Until I can find an article that says so (Steve Haskin is bound to, eventually...) I guess I have to just let the facts stand for themselves.
 * "Due to his size, the growing young horse sometimes also got in his own way during his early races, particularly as a three-year-old, when he stepped on his front feet with his hind feet and tore off a horseshoe in two different races." - Wordy. Maybe "As he grew bigger, the horse sometimes erred in his early races, particularly as a three-year-old. In two races, he stepped on his front feet with his hind feet and tore off a horseshoe."
 * He was kind of a klutz from the get-go until he grew up - think Great Dane puppy - or that high school basketball player called "Stretch" before he turned into Shaq! I reworded a little to trim and yet not mess up the nuance. Any better? --MTBW
 * Yes, and better than my suggestion too. I like it. --FT
 * " He won a preparatory race, the Awesome Again Stakes, his seventh win overall and his first Grade I win, which qualified him for the 2013 Breeders' Cup Classic, which he won, narrowly defeating Will Take Charge and Declaration of War." - Too many clauses. Split into two sentences?
 * Done --MTBW
 * Check. --FT
 * "Mucho Macho Man returned to the track in January 2014 to race for one more year, with his team having a goal to return him to defend his title at the 2014 Breeders' Cup Classic in November." - Replace the awkward "with plus -ing" construction. Maybe "Mucho Macho Man returned to the track in January 2014. His team's goal was to prepare him to defend his title at the 2014 Breeders' Cup Classic in November."
 * Done --MTBW
 * Check. --FT
 * Mr. Green Jeans shouldn't be linked inside a direct quotation.
 * It's not a direct quotation, it's a nickname, just as I put his other nickname, "Lazurus" in quotes a sentence or two prior?? --MTBW
 * Yes, you are right. --FT
 * "He benefitted from the commitment of the people around him, who consistently state their decisions are based on 'what's best for the horse.' " - Delete boilerplate. What else would they say?
 * Same as in lede. Thoughts on SYNTH?  --MTBW
 * Please see my reply above. With luck, something heretofore undiscovered may turn up. --FT
 * "However, he disliked being whipped, and notorious for his dislike of wet conditions..." - Insert "was" before "notorious".
 * Done--MTBW
 * Quarter Horse shouldn't be linked inside a direct quotation.
 * Says the MOS where? (not sarcastic, sincere question) - and how else to we explain to readers what a Quarter Horse is without adding an extra sentence?  --MTBW
 * MOS:QUOTE and WP:LINKSTYLE - the latter gives some suggestions for dealing with the situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. To find the relevant MOS subsection, take the elevator to the seventh level and duck into the first crawlway on the right, and there it is. I've run into the same problem in other articles, and there's usually a tidy work-around. Something like "compared by one journalist to that of a Quarter Horse" might do. --FT
 * Bleech. The quote was direct from the jockey after the Breeders' Cup but I guess I can rephrase.  Better?  --MTBW
 * Yep. --FT

2010: two-year-old season 2011: three-year-old season 2013: five-year-old season
 * Should "Graded class" be "graded class"?
 * Done --MTBW
 * Check. --FT
 * "and one again behind Gourmet Dinner, who finished third" - "Once" instead of "one"?
 * Whoops! Done --MTBW
 * Check. --FT
 * "Ritvo took away the blinkers for in a workout prior to the race and kept them off..." - Remove "in"?
 * Done--MTBW
 * Check. --FT
 * "Mucho Macho Man was sixth behind Shackleford in the Preakness, his low placing possibly because he again tore off a shoe at the start, this time his left front, even though Ritvo had switched him to glued-on horseshoes." - Too many clauses. Maybe "Mucho Macho Man was sixth behind Shackleford in the Preakness. At the start, he again he tore off a shoe, this time from his left front, even though Ritvo had switched him to glued-on horseshoes. The misstep may have accounted for his low placing."
 * Done. Better?--MTBW
 * Yes, looks good. --FT
 * "A knowledgeable horseman but also an openly-acknowledged recovering alcoholic who committed to straightforwardness as part of his sobriety, Green insisted that as a condition of employment he had the right to advocate for what was best for a horse under his management, even if that meant expressing disagreement and imposing "tough love" on the owners." - Too many clauses. Also, it's not clear why Green's status as a recovering alcoholic would give him license to be any more or less straightforward than a non-alcoholic. Would horse owners considering hiring anyone who did not "advocate for what was best for a horse under his management"?
 * Kind of part of how everyone around the horse has some tale of trouble and redemption. And yeah, the whole AA commitment to not lying to yourself and all, it takes guts to stand up to rich owners. I'll tighten the wording and cut the recovering alcoholism bit for now, but his "comeback" was, in its own way, as remarkable as Ritvo's heart transplant, would be open to a way to put that in there. (Maybe look at the source article, it's very interesting) --MTBW
 * I need to read the source article and give this further thought. I agree that the content is probably usable somehow. Just off the top of my head, I'd think about adding a "Notes" subsection to the "References" section and telling Green's personal story in a note if it won't fit smoothly into the main text. Last voyage of the Karluk uses a notes system that I've grown fond of, but there are more ways to the woods than one. Please disregard this struck comment; you already have a perfectly good Notes system in the article. --FT
 * Would it work just to alter the first sentence of the Green paragraph to say: "In September, Finn Green, a recovering alcoholic with his own story of triumph over adversity, began working for Reeves."?? --FT
 * Works for me! --MTBW
 * Check. --FT


 * "On November 2, Mucho Macho Man contested his second Breeders' Cup Classic and started the 4–1 second favorite in a strong field..." - I'm not sure what this means. It's the phrase, "started the 4–1 second favorite" that puzzles me. What does "4–1" refer to? Odds of finishing second?
 * Ah, that was awkward. I added a link to Parimutuel betting the first time in the article that odds are mentioned and made a tweak here.  Better? --MTBW
 * Yes. --FT
 * "His win in the Classic was also selected as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association's "Moment of the Year," with participation in the online polling for that award up by more than 50% from the previous year, believed to be largely due to the popularity of Mucho Macho Man and the people around him." - Replace "with" connector, perhaps by splitting the sentence into two separate sentences. Spell out "percent".
 * Done. --MTBW
 * I tweaked this a bit more. Please check my changes to make sure they are OK. --FT
 * Groovy --MTBW

2014: six-year-old season
 * "With the announcement that Will Take Charge was also coming to California, the 2014 race became the most highly anticipated running since the matchup of Alysheba and Ferdinand in 1988, being the only other time in history that the previous year's Breeders' Cup top two finishers returned to challenge one another in the Santa Anita Handicap." - Full stop after 1988, and rewrite the rest as a complete sentence?
 * Used a semicolon and chopped some words. Better?--MTBW
 * I added a missing word, "was", then added "that year" for clarity. Please check my changes. --FT
 * Rephrased that again - I had it a similar way initially, until I realized that it is possible that the top two BC winners may have met up at other races at other tracks, the big deal - and all the source verifies - was this specific race. If you want to tweak the grammar some more, just do so with that in mind.--MTBW
 * Yurk! I see (I think). The semicolon was throwing me off; I kept looking for a verb for the stuff after the semicolon. I changed the semicolon to a comma, which I think makes the whole thing OK. --FT
 * "Sixteen horses were nominated for the race and Mucho Macho Man was assigned the highest impost at 124 pounds (56 kg), with rivals Will Take Charge assigned 123 pounds (56 kg) and Game on Dude at 122 pounds (55 kg)." - "With" isn't a good conjunction. Suggest full stop after (56 kg). The rest might appear as "Will Take Charge raced at 123 pounds (56 kg) and Game on Dude 122 pounds (55 kg)."
 * OK. Better?  --MTBW
 * Yes. I altered the conversion templates to show more exact figures since the rounded conversions made the first two horses look identical in kilograms. Please revert if this violates racing convention. --FT
 * No, that's fine. We just use pounds in the USA, so I think a standard decimal conversion like you did is fine.  did we screw up any conversions for UK readers (I think they use "stone" in the UK anyway... good luck converting that) --MTBW
 * (FAC stalker:) In the UK we use "stones" (14 pounds) for weight of people, but not for very much else. All of us right-ponders would understand pounds in the context of an impost; you could check "What we do" to see if the British Horseracing Authority's method matches your understanding. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pedigree Support by Finetooth. All my concerns have been addressed, and I believe the article meets all the criteria for promotion. Finetooth (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "both horses being out of the mare Primal Force." - Rather than tacking this on with "both ... being", I'd suggest a full stop, then "Both were out of the mare Primal Force." Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --MTBW
 * Check. --FT
 * Thank you, Finetooth; I'll go through your comments and address or respond, may take me a bit.  Montanabw (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Completed your comments, fixed most, have some questions and comments. Thank you for your review!   Montanabw (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I will read the Green article and add something more ASAP. The rest of my day looks very busy, so it may take me until tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda


 * I had no time to read the above, so apologize for likely repetition. I am also no horse person and was happy about links for terms such as dam. I wonder if they might be repeated to their first appearance in the article, as the lead is long.
 * I am glad to link as needed, if there were some missed at first use, feel free to put them in, or just ask me to. I'm OK with adding them again later, but some people will then complain that I am overlinking, so please advise. --MTBW
 * Others should look at it. I didn't see it missing a first time, but when a so far unknown term (such asdam) appeared in the body the first time, it was not linked, - but a link would help me, forgetful as I am --GA
 * I happen to agree with you, but I usually get busted for overlinking! So COLLECTIVE WISDOM; suggestions?  --MTBW


 * Lead: "Due to his size, the growing young horse sometimes also got in his own way during his early races" - what does "also" mean? - A little later "win, won"?
 * Finetooth had some issues there too. I reworded that section, see if it's better now?  --MTBW
 * Yes --GA


 * Background - is that a good header for the description? Born late in he year - difficult competition - seemed lifeless: the sequence seems odd ;) - Do we know who named him Lazarus? - "Not only did the horse survive near-death in 2008, so did his eventual trainer, Kathy Ritvo, who had a heart transplant in November 2008." seems a bit too playful for such serious matters.
 * We use "background" for other race horse articles; it's sort of standard, not that it's perfect. I don't have a source for who nicknamed him "Lazurus" - implied it was the people at the farm where he was born, but not sure who specifically. Open to ideas to rephrase the near-death bit; it is joyful because they both survived and triumphed over adversity; which is part of why this whole story is interesting. --MTBW
 * I don't want to change all horse articles ;) - I would expect under Background his parents, conditions of life,history of owners. His description, I would like to see in additional Description, which might cover his character, see just below. I will think about the wording, need coffee first and have other topics, with a deadline --GA
 * Hmmm. It is quite difficult to separate his character from his racing career. What I wound up doing is putting MORE into the racing career section, to keep his training history all in one place. That paragraph now can stand wherever - it all needs to go in background or it all needs to stay where it is now.  I've some flexibility here, but it was in "background" and I moved it because it felt better elsewhere - but I've also been staring at the article until I am bleary-eyed, so will defer to the collective wisdom on this one too! --MTBW
 * Not much collective wisdom has appeared here ;) - I still find that a description is not what would expect as "background", - it's pretty much in the foreground.


 * Racing career: surprised to find his character described there.
 * I had it in the background section for a while, but the racing career section needed an intro, and this was general commentary on what he was like as a racehorse, so I moved it there. Thoughts on how to do it better?  --MTBW
 * see just above, and yes, please others? --GA
 * See above --MTBW
 * If the racing career needs an intro, could that be a summary? For not a horse person, what follows is very detailed. --GA


 * 2010: "After that race, he changed ownership and trainers." He who? Gourmet Dinner was the last mentioned.
 * Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
 * Yes, now it's not ambiguous. Consider something like: it was then that the Reeves bought him. They had ... --GA
 * Took your advice. Better?
 * Yes --GA

That's it for now, need a brake ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, I think I addressed most of them, but have some questions too, so back to you!  Montanabw (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for improvements! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I read through it, am impressed and close to supporting, but will wait a bit longer for collective wisdom on a paragraph "meet the horse" (you will find a better header) on his physical and character presence combined, not half in background, half in career, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I actually share your dilemma as I moved it back and forth a couple times myself.  I think I'll PING the collective wisdom: , , , can you guys take a look at Gerda's question, which is basically if the first paragraph of the racing career section would be better up in background - My original idea for moving it was to do an intro to the racing career section with an overview that also covered his general quirks as a racehorse.  I thought it an improvement, but maybe not.  Comments?   Montanabw (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I am probably guilty of introducing/proliferating the "Background" sub-heading I feel I should chip in. Under this heading I would tend to include everything that happened before the horse began its racing career. The advantage of this rather woolly heading is that it can be used for just about any racehorse, from any country in the last 250 years.  Tigerboy1966  21:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And what I did was stretch it a bit beyond that, to include an overview of his ownership and an assessment of what Gerda calls his "character" - traits he has as a racehorse (hates the mud, fast out of the gate, reacts poorly to being whipped, etc.) - things that are kind of awkward to scatter randomly throughout the chronology of races.  Montanabw (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to moving the paragraph in question up into the Background section. That seems a bit tidier to me than the existing arrangement. Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pending any other comments to the contrary, I'll do that. Thanks.   Montanabw (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, I like the new arrangement. Perhaps think about subheaders in the rather long "Background" which starts with the description - which seems in the foreground to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gerda. You may have a point, I think Tigerboy1966 and the rest of the WP Horse racing clan will need to discuss how to handle a standardized format on these longer articles, it's a good idea.  Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Dead link
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * Don't use quote-initial ellipses
 * in that context, the speaker said a whole lot more prior to that statement, so it's not the beginning of a sentence, it's the end. I think it appropriate given the context, which was "He ran fast, and I geared him down at the end and tried not to overdo it." I didn't want to use an overlong quote, and "he ran fast" was kind of, a "well, duh" thing for the jockey to say, kind of obvious given that he won by 14 lengths... ;-) that said, if you really want the elipses out, I'll toss them. Please advise--MTBW
 * Kill them. In almost every case the speaker/writer has said a lot more than we quote, else we'd be quoting entire sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, dead. (But will note in passing that in legal citation - which I know isn't what we are using here - introductory ellipses are appropriate to signal when you are jumping into the middle of a sentence, just saying) --MTBW
 * Our Manual of Style gives an example of an initial ellipsis in the MOS:ELLIPSIS Function and implementation section. But the Associated Press stylebook recommends that if the truncated sentence can stand as a sentence, it should do so. I think I'm with Nikki and the AP here - this quote is the second half of a compound sentence and we don't care about the first half and the conjunction. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I fixed it that way. --MTBW
 * FN13, 65, 66: date format is different here than for other sources
 * Fixed, let me know if I missed something --MTBW
 * Sometimes Daily Racing Form is italicized, sometimes not - it should be
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * Why does FN25 include publisher but other online publications not?
 * If you mean the Brisnet source, it's because Brisnet is weird and doesn't make it easily clear internally that The Handicapper's Edge is part of its web site, nor the date of the article; you have to backtrack to an earlier page to get both - poor web design on their part.  But if you want me to pitch "Brisnet", I can do so, Please advise --MTBW
 * Okay, that's fine as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does USA Today include location but The Guardian not?
 * I think a difference of opinion between myself and another editor, but Please advise which way you want me to go before I go fix a bunch of stuff in the wrong direction - you want location on all of these or none of these? --MTBW
 * This is one of those things that it doesn't really matter which you pick so long as you're consistent. In this case since you've got most publications of that type including location it would make more sense to add it to Guardian, but that's your call. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added location. Easier fix.
 * FN81: despite what the website says, "Press Release" is not an author. And why is the other press release credited to Staff?
 * true that, but what do you want me to do about it? I'll make both staff for now, pending if you'd prefer a different format - Please advise--MTBW
 * Well, did the staff of the website write that content, or was it provided by some third party? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Press Release" generally implies outside third party - particularly when multiple publications copy it verbatim, ;-) though the identity of WHO issued the press release isn't always clear. Frankly, there are several different ways this could be cited, so just say what your preference is here and I'll do it. Please advise--MTBW
 * FN83 needs endash
 * Fixed but =:-O It took me longer to find it than anything else on this list -- (er —) be kind to older eyes! --MTBW
 * Why do some Equibase cites credit "Staff" as author and others include no author? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Different editors, I think. I'll make it consistent to "staff," let me know if I missed any --MTBW
 * Equibase now fine (except FN32 and 71 should have uppercase), but Equineline needs the same treatment (compare FNs 1 and 92). Nikkimaria (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed I think, holler if I missed anything else. -MTBW
 * Most "pdf" notations are lowercase, but FN86 is uppercase - doesn't matter which but be consistent
 * FIXED --MTBW (If you see these minor one-offs and can easily fix them on the spot, just do so, I don't mind)
 * FN78 and 84 have slightly different publication titles and different locations - if these are meant to be the same, they should be standardized to whichever is correct
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * FN84: Sports Network should actually be in the agency parameter, not author. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The byline in the source states "By Sports Network"? But it does appear to be a pr outfit releasing the info - I changed it to "agency" but if that's not right, I would be OK if you just tweak that one as you see fit.  --MTBW
 * I've fixed most and, have a couple questions to clarify what you're after , noted in boldabove – thanks for the review.   Montanabw (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, got almost all, still nitpicking over the "press release" question.  Given that there are multiple ways to do it, just give me the one you want used and I'll do it that way.  Montanabw (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO

 * Ran checklinks bot and the silly thing made the PDF notations in the refs all caps, but as stated above, I think those things should be lower case. Anyway, it tagged one cite as dead but since I'm temporarily stuck using a very portable device....I couldn't see which ref it tagged as dead. Anyway, added a few non-breaking spaces. The only thing so far, and maybe this was discussed elsewhere, and though of very inconsequential importance...any reason to not link to Lazarus of Bethany or Lazarus syndrome when mentioning the after-fouling nickname "Lazarus"?


 * I'll link and if one of the other reviewers has an issue, then I'll unlink. I'm groovy with the small stuff.   Montanabw (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Made them all lower case again, kept the fix you actually made. Checked links again, nothing came up dead for me, and I fixed the one Nikkimaria found the other day.  Damn machines...love  'em when I'm creating articles, hate 'em at FAC.    Montanabw (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Lazarus link, but I'm absolutely certain that phrases like "2.5 lengths" and "50 percent" do not require a non-breaking space - that only applies when an abbreviated unit follows a numeral (see MOS:NBSP section Use). However, the redirects that checklink found are good (even if it piped them inaccurately): quarter crack and morning line go to the right places and are preferred over the piped versions (see MOS:NOPIPE). I'd definitely change those two. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that a redirect is preferable to a piped link? I've usually been hammered in the opposite direction.  OK then... Montanabw (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. A existing redirect like quarter crack means that the wikitext is more readable and should an article eventually be spun off on the subject, it replaces the redirect and you don't have to update your links in this article. Whoever has been pushing you in the other direction needs to think through what they have been advocating. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FIXED. Can't remember where I got the "redirects are bad" advice, but may be buried somewhere in the bowels of the WP guidelines...  Montanabw (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support listing as a featured article. I've been back and forth through the article in both read and editing mode and see virtually no room for improvements. Article is comprehensive and generally neutral...though there is the slightest lean towards the promotional, but it's very slight and nearly imperceptible. This article is amongst our best.--MONGO 14:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ColonelHenry
Currently reading the article, and will be adding comments shortly. I anticipate supporting this, as after a few quick readings of the article can assert that I think it to be Montanabw's best equine article to date. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I await your comments, but don't forget to also give credit to who did the massive cleanup of the earlier version that launched my efforts here, and I also could not have gotten very far had not  bailed me out by starting the chart and finding free use images! All mistakes, however, are mine, all mine!   Montanabw (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(moved my comments down since it took a while for me to get started and I didn't want them getting lost above)--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Criteria assessment
 * CRITERIA 1: (standby) After several read-throughs, and seeing a lot of the nitpicking/revision comments were sufficiently addressed above, I can assert that in my estimation, this article is sufficiently meets the criteria of 1A, 1B, and 1C, in that the article is well-written, engaging, and high quality and comprehensive in its scope, and the depth of sources indicates that it is well-researched and satisfies the demands of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. 1D: The article does not show any indication of POV or bias and is a neutral biography of a wonderful horse; and per 1E: I do not see any indication that the article has been the subject of edit warring or content disputes.
 * CRITERIA 2: - 2A: I think the lede conforms with WP:LEDE and provides a good introduction to the article content. 2B: I believe the layout and structure of the article, and its TOC is appropriate. 2C: Citations appear properly formatted and consistent.
 * CRITERIA 3: Nikkimaria, who is known to be thorough with image use issues and reviews accordingly, did an image review above and gave the "all clear", so I'm satisfied regarding the WP:IUP/WP:NFC/copyright issues. As for captions, the two image captions are succinct and informative and in keeping with the WP:CAPTION.
 * CRITERIA 4: I think the article is of appropriate length, and adequately balances informative detail and summary style.

I am glad to SUPPORT this wonderful article for promotion to FA status. I apologise for the delay in completing my review of the article, sadly, real life outside wiki calls.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

All done, back to you! Montanabw (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Another dead link
 * Fixed, damn I wish equibase would create stable links from the get go! Arrgh!  Fixed --MTBW
 * Is there an article for the Anoakia Stakes?
 * No, it's not a graded stakes race any more, just a "listed stakes" - it used to be a Grade III way back, but not any more.    WP Horse racing's notability cutoff for an article is usually Graded Stakes Races only, and even then the Grade III races are lowest on the priority list for creation--MTBW
 * Is it known whether the Stronach interest is a majority or minority stake?
 * Nope, the sources all say "undisclosed" (which I had in there at one point, it has disappeared, should it be restored?) they make a big deal about how the horse is staying with his team and racing with Reeves' silks, so either it's a minority interest or they negotiated the deal for the horse to stay with his current crew, but we don't know which, they are very hush-hush about it. --MTBW
 * Where were the first and second races into which he was entered?
 * The first race he actually ran is in the chart, but not the scratch; I added Calder to the narrative. Does that clarify? --MTBW
 * "In a moment of synchronicity" - why is this here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Cause of the Seabiscuit connection - people noted that Stevens had co-starred with Banks in the movie. Would you prefer coincidence?  Feel free to tweak that as you see fit. --MTBW

Closing comment -- I'll be promoting this shortly but note that I spotted a few duplinks with Ucucha's checker, so just have a look and see if you really need them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.