Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yukon Quest/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009.

Yukon Quest

 * Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeez ... Jappalang's nomination spiel is a tough act to follow, so I'm not even going to try. This is the second FAC nomination for Yukon Quest. It failed about a month ago with two supports and one oppose. Since that time, I've added a few more photos, edited the article to meet the concerns of reviewers, added a couple citations, and stubbed most of the redlinks in the article. I felt this article was ready for FA the last time I submitted it, and I feel even more the same way now. If you have any questions or concerns outside of a normal review, don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope you'll review the article and find it worthy of FA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - To be honest, I'm a little stymied about this repeat nomination so soon after the first (less than 30 days), especially since the article doesn't seem to have changed substantively (other than images and minor tweaks) since its last FAC was archived. I left off last time asking for a third-party copyedit, which hasn't been done. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you posted this comment, I finished my third copy edit on the article. I'd invite you to take another look. I don't intend to apply for a formal copy edit for two reasons:
 * I don't believe it's necessary — I don't think the article is perfect, but if you asked me if I think the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", I'd answer yes.
 * Looking at the writing holistically, I'd say that the article is as a whole well-written; that is, the flow is pretty good and there are no glaring errors. However, the blemishes on the clause level, as indicated by my examples below, need to be smoothed out for the writing to truly be "brilliant". To your credit, your articles are well-organized (in paragraphing and multi-sentence cohesiveness), which makes it much easier to find these problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other articles need copy editing assistance more than this one, and I don't want to take up the limited time of the copy editors who already have an overwhelming demand for their services.
 * If you believe it's necessary, I'd encourage you to apply for one. It's not my article, and you certainly don't need my permission. I don't think another formal copy edit is necessary, but I don't want to discourage editors from going through the article and pointing out places where the explanation isn't clear to someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Thanks for your comment! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A big thank you goes out to Magicpiano for copy editing the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Not sure exactly what to make of this one. I supported before but am concerned there are flaws that I'm missing, considering the opposition from the last FAC. One thing I do see is that the lead has a couple of small paragraphs that would be better off merged elsewhere in the opening.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right about the lede ... I've shoved those two short paragraphs -- the ones about the route length and the 2010 race -- into the paragraph that separated them. Let me know if that makes the paragraph too long; it's the reason I didn't do that the first time around. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

map - would this be in order? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My skills with Illustrator leave a lot to be desired, but I'll give it a shot. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've managed to put something together that's acceptable. Check it out and let me know how I did. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Last FAC, I was more focused on getting through the entire article rather than focusing on one area. On intense scrutiny, however, I find glitches:
 * "Owing to the hazardous conditions encountered by the dogs that participate in the race, many of the Quest's rules are geared toward ensuring animals' health." 1) I think we've established that the dogs that are referenced to are participants in the race—maybe "wing to the hazardous conditions encountered by the participating dogs"; 2) You go from "dogs" to "animals", I wasn't aware that other animals were directly involved in the race.
 * How about "their" for No. 2? I didn't want to repeat dogs, but maybe that would work.


 * "This process begins before the race, when all dogs are required to undergo a check by race veterinarians" Could be "This process begins before the race, when all dogs must be checked by race veterinarians" (I think that a better word could be used instead of "checked")
 * Instead of "checked," how about "examined"?


 * "who certify that the animals are in good enough health to participate and are suitable for arctic travel." Could be "who certify that the animals are healthy enough to participate and are suitable for arctic travel." (should "arctic" be capitalized"?)
 * I don't think "arctic" should be capitalized in this sense ... my copy of Webster's doesn't capitalize it, and in this case, the term could be referring to the temperature rather than the region. Given the possible meanings, I suggest leaving it lower case.


 * "must finish with no fewer than 6 dogs."-->must finish with more than 6 dogs.
 * They can finish with six dogs. Saying they have to finish with more than six means they can't finish with six.


 * "During the race, dogs are visually examined by veterinarians stationed at every checkpoint." Is there any other type of examination that could be done?
 * Blood work and chemical tests, which aren't done until after the race. During the race, they're mainly worried about exhaustion, frostbite, sores from running or friction from harnesses, that sort of thing.


 * You really emphasize the penalties assessed for dog mistreatment. Can you provide a concrete example? For example, what did "Donald Smidt" that earned him disqualification?
 * I haven't been able to find a reliable source that states what happened to him. I did run across a forum posting talking about sores on the dogs' feet, but I haven't found anything that's reliable.


 * "Five hundred-dollar fines" It would be more readable as "Five $100 fines..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Five-hundred-dollar fines. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—The writing is not good enough. Why is this here less than a month after the last attempt? And why has it sucked up our precious reviewing resources for a whole 24 days? This is not the venue for article improvement drives: they should occur before nomination. Sorry to talk plainly. I read only part of the lead, as an example of the whole text.
 * Tony, if you'll allow me to be equally frank, posting such a comment after reading only "part of the lead" of a 65k article is akin to reading three pages of a book, then writing a damning review. I appreciate your comments in regards to things I can fix in regards to the text, but your comments about how this review was submitted are irrelevant. FAC reviews the content of the article, not the content of the review. It was not my intent to use the FAC process as an article improvement method, except by what was needed to achieve the support of other editors. In the first review, the article received two supports and one oppose. The condition of the oppose — that it receive a thorough copy editing — has been resolved thanks to Magicpiano.


 * No metric conversion at the opening.
 * The official name does not require a conversion.


 * Few readers will know that Yukon is in Canada, directly to the east of Alaska.
 * That's why it's been wikilinked.


 * "harsh winter conditions"—It's summer in February in half the planet.
 * Good idea.


 * What is a musher?
 * Wikilink moved to first reference.


 * it is considered the "most difficult sled dog race in the world".[1] It also has been called the "toughest race in the world".[2]—Why two quotes, nearly the same? Can't one be used below?
 * They're two different categories, as I understand it. Forex, "toughest race in the world" would include things like marathons or the Dakar Rally. Sort of like someone saying she's not only the toughest human in the world, he's the toughest mammal in the world.


 * "Musher", I see, is linked on second, not first appearance. Shouldn't have to hit the link to learn in a phrase what it means.
 * See two comments above. As to the second part, I'm sorry, but I disagree. This is covered under the section of WP:LINK that deals with technical terms. I've written 10 previous FAs, many of which dealt with individual college football games. In no instance was I required to explain the rules of college football or what a down, touchdown, or extra point are.


 * Is Whitehorse in Yukon? I know that Fairbanks is in Alaska, but most won't.
 * Fairbanks, Alaska, and Whitehorse, Yukon are the terms used in the first sentence of the article.


 * Permitted and allowed? drops drops. "and" rather than "or"? "Racers are permitted to drop sled dogs at checkpoints or dog drops but are not allowed to replace the dogs." --> "Racers are permitted to leave sled dogs at checkpoints and dog drops, but not to replace the dogs." Then ... "They also cannot may neither replace their sleds without penalty, nor accept help from non-racers except when they reach Dawson City, the halfway mark of the race . Tony   (talk)  16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're going. The only part I'd contend with is the removal of the prepositional phrase identifying Dawson, since the article hasn't defined its importance to that point. Removing it would cause readers to ask the question "Why Dawson City and not some other point?" JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.