Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shergar/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018.

Shergar

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Shergar's is a sorry tale. One of the finest racehorses of the 20th century, winner of the Epsom Derby, Irish Derby and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes in the same year he captured the public's eye through a series of wins. Two years after he was retired to stud, he was stolen and a ransom for £2 million was issued. Negotiations broke down, and the horse was never seen again. No individual or group has admitted responsibility, although an IRA supergrass says they were to blame. Whoever it was, it was a sad loss, mostly for the poor horse. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for a sad story well told! As usual, I will read the lead but comment that last.

Background
 * For people, we'd say first when born, then parents, then looks. Is it different for horses?
 * I'm sure have any guidelines that proscribe the order, but I took this outline from Oxbow (horse), an FA. Secretariat (horse), another related FA, does it differently, so I'm not sure there is a common pattern - or a need for one. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No need, just a question. I was involved in only one horse article - a happier horse - and needed all help from expert Montanabw. I looked it up and saw that the date of foaling isn't even repeated in the body, but now the lead is very short, - it doesn't compare.


 * "... some of his yearlings for training in England. He chose Michael Stoute" - that read for a moment as if Stoute was one of the yearlings.
 * Yes - tweaked to clarify - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Later development
 * The header seems a bit pale for what follows.
 * Yes, it probably does. I'll try and think about a replacement that is neutral enough, but conveys something as relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Will look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll think about a replacement header, which is too weak at the moment - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I went with "Possible identification of the criminals", but I'm sure it could be improved upon. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that much better, thank you. - I have a lot of things to do today, + RL, so not sure when I can return, but can actually support right now. Whatever questions might come, they are only minor and can be fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As soon as I hit save, I remembered the lead. It's fine, only when we get from the lead of the lead (1st para) to the narration a little longer, I was surprised (but don't know how to prepare for: now we start over). Another question: do we have a picture of the owner in the period? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your coments, and the support. I can't find a free picture of the Aga Khan from the time, only contemporary images, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

 * Planning to look through references and prose today.  ceran  thor 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "In one season he won the Epsom Derby, Irish Sweeps Derby and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes." - which season was that?
 * Added - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "In 1999 a supergrass, formerly in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), stated that Shergar had been stolen by them to raise funds" - why such passive phrasing? "had been stolen by them" is so redundant and wordy
 * Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead repeats itself a bit, and I think it's a bit too long to be honest. I think the second and third paragraphs could be cut without much lost in terms of the setup for the rest of the article
 * There is a minor repetition in telling the 'headline facts' in the opening para, some of which are broadened in the later text. I will look to trim, but I have to disagree about removing too much without giving those who only skim the lead a misleading or incomplete picture. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "The story has been made into two screen dramatisations, several books and two documentaries." - the story of his theft? of his success? be more precise
 * I'm not sure we need that much precision in the lead, but I've tweaked to "His story"


 * " Set over a ​1 1⁄2 mile course" - conversion?
 * Oops - now added - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "and turned on the speed to win by four lengths.[38][39]" - "turned on the speed" seems overly colloquial
 * yep - now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Fitzgerald said the men were not rough, although one of them who carried a pistol was very aggressive.[53][50]" - refs should go in ascending order (ie. [50][53])
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "On 9 February the thieves opened a second line of negotiation, contacting Ballymany stud directly and speaking to Drion" - is there a typo here with "Ballymany stud"?
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "The caller told the negotiators "If you're not satisfied, that's it"." - might be better to put a citation directly after this quote to be safe
 * Yes, quite right: done - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I worry about the reliability of some of the sources under "Internet and television media", such as Aviva or the Japan Bloodhorse Breeders' Association. Can you speak a little more to the reliability of those two sites, as well as Aga Khan Studs and Thoroughbred Heritage?
 * Aviva is the well-known insurance company who were the ones that carried some of the insurance; the Japan Bloodhorse Breeders' Association, Aga Khan Studs and Thoroughbred Heritage are all known and respected in the racing world. Can I spin this round: what do you may be unreliable about them? - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, this looks to be in good shape, particularly on the prose side of things.  ceran  thor 00:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've covered most of your comments - the lead being the one that needs to be dealt with after a little more thought and re-writing, but I'll sort that shortly. Thanks very much for your comments - they have been most useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * SchroCat - No, that's fair, I just had no objective way (not knowing anything about racing) of determining what was reliable or not without asking more about them. Will be happy to support once I think the lead has been satisfactorily fixed up.  ceran  thor 15:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Curious to hear other opinions - do you all think the lead is fine as is? Part of me thinks it needs reorganizing and that it's too long. Intend to support, but the lead is holding me back at the moment.  ceran  thor 13:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It didn't strike me as too long or needing rejigging when I read it for PR and again for FAC. At your prompting I've read it a third time, with as critical an eye as I could muster (if one musters eyes) and I'm still quite happy with it. I know next to nothing about racing and my comments should be read accordingly, but I'm blest if I can see what could advantageously be cut from the lead, and I think it sets out the basic facts logically and clearly.  Tim riley  talk   13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I also found the repetition a bit odd, you basically have the article summarised twice, but well, I'm not sure if that is discouraged in general. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I made some brief trimming to the opening paragraph to remove details to give it more impact and to encapsulate the subject more appropriately. I moved the links down to the second paragraphs to expand on the whole story. I've used this format before: Punchy opening paragraph that covers the subject, then the remaining paras giving more details while it runs through the article in order. If there is anything in particular you think shouldn't be in the lead, I'd be glad to hear it and we can then judge if it's worthwhile keeping or not (purely on the basis of whether it makes the whole story readable to those who only ever read the lede, rather than the full article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also noting that per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of over 30K characters is expected to have a lead of "three or four" paragraphs"; considering that this article comes in at >32K, it could reasonably bear more weight rather than less to the lead. I don't suggest it; I merely note that the arithmetic does.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what FunkMonk means, but in general terms this is what I understand all leads should do: open with a very short overview and then develop it into a succinct précis of the main article. It's a variation on the ancient advice to teachers and trainers: tell them what you're going to tell them; tell them it; and then tell them what you've told them. We tell them in a sentence or two, then tell them in 300-400 words, then tell them again in as many words as it takes to tell the full story.  Tim riley  talk   13:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone, for your replies. Happy to support this now.  ceran  thor 14:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and thoughts, Ceranthor. I made a further slight trim today, and I'll re-visit it periodically to sharpen it further if I see a better way of doing it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review
I've got a fair few of the books already so it makes sense to pick this up. , would you be able/willing to email me things I can't otherwise access? For the purpose of spot-checking, I'll be looking at, I think, a random selection of around third of the sources. —— SerialNumber  54129  15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - just let me know what you need, and I'll ping it across. You may want to consider 's comment about the use of information from Aviva, the Japan Bloodhorse Breeders' Association, the Aga Khan Studs and Thoroughbred Heritage too. I'm fairly comfortable with them as being solid, but if you think any should be replaced, I'm fairly sure I can get the info from elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Err: Not part of the source review, but do we need the second "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)"? I think IRA would suffice—after all, there was no other. The Officials had to all intents and purposes formally disbanded by now, and the next in the canon—the Continuity IRA—was not yet even only a glint in Ó Brádaigh's eye. It's a bulky phrase for something pretty self-explanatory; I 'll get on with the source review soon enough. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried it (piping the link into the initials), but it wouldn't surprise me if someone pops it back again! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Shergar_in_1981.jpg: the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is considered of historic significance (eg. Tank Man photo). This should use a different tag and a stronger FUR
 * , Any suggestions on the tag? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Both this and the kidnapping photo could use the default non-free tag from the race image, or this one could use non-free-biog-pic.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, tags changed - I’ll add to the FUR shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FUR now tweaked also. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The FUR for File:Shergar,_1981_Derby.jpg states it is one of two non-free images in the article, but there are three
 * Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Probable_photograph_of_Shergar_sent_by_his_kidnappers.png probably wouldn't qualify as an artwork, and are we certain it wasn't published before 2018? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Milton Toby specifically says in his book that this photo is "never before published" - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon. At first glance, since he is central to the story, I think the Agha Khan should be introduced in the background section. Briefly, that he is a hereditary religious figure or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Probably one of the photographs sent" Why probably?
 * Toby adds a small caveat to the identification - I've added a footnote to cover it now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You could mention in the caption of the Agha Khan photo that he was the owner of the horse, now the captions gives no context.
 * Now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Any reason why the two maps shown are so different in size?
 * Nope! They're not now though. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "After the success of the operation, it was decided to undertake another ransom (kidnapping or theft), this time of Shergar." Seems straight this is stated asa bare fact, when the preceding sentence states IRA are still only suspected, and later sentences state O'Callaghan was unreliable. So who made this claim, based on what?
 * "in an effort to raise the money that they failed to do with the Shergar theft" Likewise. What is this claim based on?
 * Details added to cover these two - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps worth mentioning under legacy that documentaries have been made? You mention it in the intro, after all.
 * Now added thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "conducted with the thieves in Ireland and Paris" This could be read as if the thieves were in Ireland and Paris, perhaps say "from" instead of "in"?
 * This bit has been trimmed out of the lead anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - ugh, forgot this, hope it's ok even after it was promoted, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber
Taking a look now - fascinating story..Overall the prose is good, but it would be good if some of the quotes could be de-quoted (some can't but some can). It'd make for smoother reading....

e.g:  thought Shergar's run was "the most impressive performance by any two-year-old this season"


 *  After the race Stoute said the horse "might have one more run for experience, and then we'll put him away until next season"
 *  After the race Piggott told reporters that he had no doubt that Shergar would win as the horse "was going so easily all the way".
 *  He also said that Shergar was "one of the best ... [he had] ridden"
 * I've taken out these and a few others, mostly from the top of the article (they are from race reports, rather than throughout the article). I skimmed though the rest and think most of the rest are OK, but let me know if you think any more could be cut


 *  The first phone call from those behind the theft was on the night Shergar was stolen - why not just, "The first phone call from the theives was on the night Shergar was stolen"?
 * Done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks I've addressed these, but please let me know if there is anything else you think needs looking at. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Cas - I'm very grateful. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I peer reviewed the article and my few quibbles were dealt with thoroughly at that stage. On rereading the article I find nothing more to quibble about, and am happy to support promotion. The text is thorough, balanced and well and widely sourced. The pictures, given the recency of the events, are remarkably full and to the point. Meets the FA criteria in my view. A fine article.  Tim riley  talk   19:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim - I'm very much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
I also nitpicked my way through at PR and it's even stronger now than it was then. Very pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.