Wikipedia:Peer review/California Chrome/archive1

California Chrome
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC in the near future. This will be the third race horse "biography" I've taken to FAC, but it has become the most complicated because there were, literally, hundreds of news articles and other sources to consult in an ever-changing story. At this point, I have been working at the article and updating it on a near-daily basis for the last six weeks or so and am bleary-eyed. News on this horse changed quickly, and sources contradicted themselves, and it took a lot of time to be sure I "got it right" when, clearly, many members of the press did not. This was the first time I ever worked on an actively-developing story, and the article just hit 500,000 hits sometime today. So in reviewing the article, aside from the usual, I am hoping folks can:


 * 1) Catch the usual wikignoming fixes I need to make in style and syntax;
 * 2) Catch anything duplicative or otherwise just poorly written
 * 3) Is all the horse lingo either wikilinked to an article/definition or explained in the article well enough for non-racing, non-horse aficionados to understand?
 * 4) Suggest things that could be trimmed down a bit and discuss if anything could be thrown out altogether.
 * For example, should we keep the funny story about the opossum at Belmont Park? ;-)
 * 1) Any other improvements recommended before FAC?

Thanks, Montanabw (talk)  06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick pedantic comments I haven't read the prose much, but these are things that will get you slaughtered at FAC if you don't fix... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorting of Time and Margin fails.
 * I don't know how to fix that. (I don't understand table syntax at all, I just copy what other people do) Advice?  --MTBW
 * Did this get fixed? --MTBW
 * Odd partial abbreviation of dates (e.g. you allow June but not July)...
 * Where?? --MTBW
 * In the same table that the previous remark related to. `The Rambling Man (talk)
 * The dates should be three letter abbreviations, else the column is ridiculously wide compared to the others. I'll tweak somehow. --MTBW
 * Looks fine with proper dates. No need to abbreviate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have already had someone at talk complaining that the chart is too wide for their mobile device and want me to eliminate columns, which we're pretty much already cut to the minimum by eliminating unneeded parameters. I'm gunshy. Not a moral issue to me, but feels like a no-win. ;-P   Montanabw (talk)  21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Use a multiplication sign, not an x for the " 4 x 3 " etc.
 * It's an abbreviation for "by" like a wooden board is a 2 x 4 - I can do this, but is that the correct form?  --MTBW
 * Yep, you need a multiplication sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I fixed three, did I get them all? (I hate that stuff, it looks exactly the same to me, in all honesty, it's very difficult for me to fix, but I know, I know...) --MTBW
 * Explain what bold means (and if you're really keen, avoid it altogether or use an additional marker like a † per WP:ACCESS).
 * it indicates Inbreeding. (Other web sources use colors) We've never had anyone raise this at FAC and it's used for every pedigree chart in WP Horse racing... I can note it, but?  --MTBW
 * Yep, well I'd raise it at FAC and I'd also ask for for WP:ACCESS compliance with the addition of a symbol so that those of us with inadequate sight don't rely on bold text when we can't really easily see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to change the longstanding consensus of WP Horse racing to use bold on pedigrees, but I also understand the issue, so should I use a note that says "inbreeding in bold" or add a dagger to the boldface for the access issue, or...? (Open to suggestions) --MBTW
 * Notes should use consistent grammar, i.e. complete sentences take a period.
 * Feel free to tweak those as you see them, probably easier than telling me to look for the mistakes with one eye needing cataract surgery; which is probably why they occurred in the first place! --MTBW
 * I have done a few, but really it needs a copyedit to cover them all to stop the FAC warriors from going ape. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm quite bleary-eyed. Think we can convince Corbett to do a run-through?  I burned him out on the last two, I think.  --MTBW
 * Things like "Washington Post" really should be Washington Post as they're "works" not "publishers", this will be picked up at FAC no doubt about it.
 * Web citation template has removed the "work" parameter... looks like you or someone got a bunch of these already (?) I've had a lot of differences of opinion if online newspapers are citeweb or citenews. I'm open to whatever, I just don't want to fix 100 refs and then have someone else tell me I have to do it all over again --MTBW
 * I use the cite web template where "work" still exists fine. It's certainly clear that something like "Washington Post" is a work and not a publisher though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The pull-down template version in the edit window has replaced it with "website". I'll have to check later to see if it italicizes the same as "work". Somebody fiddled with something that wasn't broke. (sigh) --MTBW
 * Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
 * Copy and paste, probably. Found two that I fixed. Any more, if so, which refs? (numbers?) --MTBW
 * Everything where you HAVE A TITLE WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See above --MTBW
 * New York Times is The New York Times.
 * Fixed, that is soooo annoying. --MTBW
 * You have a "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "BH9May" is not used in the content (see the help page)." message to cope with.
 * Fixed. --MTBW
 * Sometimes it's Blood-Horse, then it's Blood-Horse, then it's BloodHorse.com.... be consistent with these.
 * Well it's this publication: Blood-Horse and I guess in italics as it's a magazine but it's also a web site and the two don't have identical content; I am always referencing the web articles. Thoughts?  --MTBW
 * I don't really care either way, but I'd ask (suggest) that you're consistent every time you use this source. Or else I know of at least one FAC reviewer who will just mention it again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gee, who might that be? (/snark)  OK.   Montanabw (talk)  21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing four WP:DAB links, "pedigree", "populist", Foundation, "Gary Stevens".
 * Will fix, thanks for spotting--MTBW


 * Thanks ! I've answered or asked further questions inline. Feel free to tweak any small things you see as you go, probably easier than telling me to look for something I am not going to see, my eyes suck and I'm putting of getting cataract surgery, FWIW.  Yes, ironic that prose, the first thing that readers see, is the least likely thing to derail a FAC.  Sigh... off to fix the nitpicks, as you are correct, I'm just annoyed in principle... bleech   Montanabw (talk)  21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've made a few tweaks, some you need to address yourself, and after all the technical crap, I'll try to find some time to read the prose (in between real life work and looking after The Rambling Kid).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've heard there is a Rambling kid... and at certain ages, they can really ramble... Basically, There are some things that are truly very difficult for me to see, I edit on a laptop and my eyes are over 50 (as is the rest of me) so where you can make the little tweaks, i will be quite grateful! Montanabw (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Doing my best, trying to fix your table, will try to sort the other technical bits too. And will finally get round to reading the prose (avoid contractions by the way!!) in due course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate everything. Considering how much I've stared at this thing to the point I just can't see half of what's there, I am more than welcome of any help in any form. You're the best!   Montanabw (talk)  21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

More and sorry for not getting back sooner. That gets me up to the "Sherman training stables" section. If I haven't annoyed you too much, I'll continue when I get another 30-minute burst of concentration.....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the wives' participation in DAP really so important that they need to be included in the lead?
 * Complicated issue; they seem to be very active behind the scenes, see the Scoby source here. One other news article (One of the Arrington ones) says they are co-owners in the partnership. I have a note at your talk, it's about this.  --MTBW
 * You link to the 2014 and the general Kentucky Derby using the same text, so it's a potentially confusing issue. Why not link "1955 Kentucky Derby" to the specific event, rather than the general event?
 * No article on 1955 Kentucky Derby, but I will see what I can do to alleviate the confusion; I did some rewriting. Is it better? --MTBW
 * "to treat the mare several times a day and gave him extra attention" reads just a shade odd, maybe replace "him" with "Chrome".
 * You're right, I'll figure out something. I don't like to say "California Chrome" tons of time, but I don't have a source saying that a lot of people (including Sherman) truncate his name to 'Chrome, though they do. --MTBW
 * I don't believe there's a real need to link a common term like "jockey".
 * Interesting article though, and I can see someone later claiming "jockey" should be "rider" or some such nonsense. I'd prefer to keep that one.  --MTBW
 * "He won that race..." last "he" you mentioned was Espinoza, keep track of the subjects so they're not too confusing.
 * I did some rewriting there. Better?  --MTBW
 * "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby" now you've linked the event twice in the lead, avoid over linking.
 * Fixed a couple of obvious ones, thanks for hunting them down. --MTBW
 * "a large field of 19 horses." interesting, a field of 19 is "large"? In the Grand National, we have around 40 horses, that's usually considered "large"!
 * Flat dirt race and the gate spans the width of the track 1-1/4 mile distance all start evenly - In most US flat races, you seldom see even 14 or 15 horses in a field. I think the Derby has the biggest field of any flat race in the country, though I'd have to double-check. --MTBW
 * You over link Preakness too in the lead.
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * "is anticipated race again later in the year, aiming for the Breeders' Cup Classic." this will very quickly become stale, I imagine it's best to not try FAC with such a temporally fragile ending to the lead.
 * I was lucky that Mucho Macho Man went up at the end of the season. I agree that stale could become a problem, but the Breeders' Cup isn't until November...his story is still being written.  --MTBW
 * "when he was a foal, is "Junior"," no need for that first comma. Or, if you insist, add one before "when".
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * "broodmare" just links back to mare, is there a more explicit link (e.g. a section link) you could use?
 * No, the definition is in the first paragraph of the mare article. --MTBW
 * Don't overlink e.g. "filly" then "fillies" linked in consecutive paragraphs to the same article.
 * FIXED --MTBW
 * Add non-breaking spaces for things like "$2.1 million" so the text doesn't break in an awkward way.
 * Added  with each ref of millions, are there other places I need to do this?  --MTBW
 * "Because all four of his legs are white, California Chrome's hooves are white as well." really? Our horse has four white legs, two white hooves and two black hooves...
 * Did exceed the source a bit, tweaked. --MTBW
 * "to developing problems,[16] During his two-year-old season" grammar fail.
 * Tweaked. better?  --MTBW
 * "develop low heels" a bit jargon.
 * You are right, I'm not sure how to fix without a treatise on horseshoeing. this has a picture of what I'm talking about. Common problem in race horses... Thoughts?  -MTBW
 * "a bit farther" sounds non-encyclopedic.
 * Tweaked. Better? --MTBW
 * Avoid repeating humans' first names after you've first introduced them, as long as it's not ambiguous to do so.
 * Alan and Art Sherman are a problem in that regard; as are Alberto and Willie Delgado. Other than those, you're correct, did I do it elsewhere? On those fellows, any thoughts? --MTBW
 * Do you mean "University of Illinois at Chicago " instead of "University of Illinois-Chicago."?
 * I think I phrased it to the source's phrasing. Problematic?  --MTBW
 * "his reticence in talking" bit passive, maybe "his reluctance to talk"?
 * Complicated issue (see other complicated comment) --MTBW
 * "March 2014[28]" I think we could all wait until the end of the sentence for the citation.
 * Open to discussion, you re right it would look better, but I know that where I've worked on articles where two or more sources are needed to cite a single sentence and they all get lumped at the end, it can confuse future editors. I hear what you are saying, but my default is to cite each tidbit to the source provided.  Do you think this one is small enough that such confusion could be avoided?  --MTBW
 * "when he was looking for a tax write-off" again doesn't read particularly encyclopaedically?
 * That is the way most sources phrase it, not sure precisely what kind of tax issue he had - open to a better way to say it, though --MTBW
 * Is it "Love the Chase" or "Love The Chase"?
 * lower case "the". I'll fix.  --MTBW
 * I imagine a link to catheter would be more instructive than a link to cowboy.
 * Did both.

More Gets me to Belmont Stakes... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "individualised attention" why not just "individual attention"?
 * Good question;I guess because he is an animal, so the handlers didn't treat him like all the others, but your call.  --MTBW
 * "had one prior experience with a Derby horse" perhaps -> "had prior experience with one Derby horse".
 * OK Fixed --MTBW
 * " race horsesr in" typo.
 * Fixed, thanks for spotting --MTBW
 * Is it "Southern California" or "southern California"?
 * I honestly don't know what the wiki gods of capitalization have decreed this week, but made both "southern California" for consistency. Until the rules change again... --MTBW
 * "Three weeks later... About four weeks later... " not terribly engaging prose.
 * Unclear about what solution you seek? Time between races is a factor, particularly when we got to the Triple Crown races with three in five weeks...?  --MTBW
 * No need to repeat Delgado's first name until it becomes confusing because there are two of them...
 * Which occurs quickly... the later Delgado was the more involved one...? I removed one use, I just don't want a different reviewer coming at me later saying "which Delgado?"  ;-)  --MTBW
 * You convert pounds to kg but leave furlongs and miles as they are. I'd suggest converting everything or nothing.
 * I've put in convert templates for all distances save where they are a direct quote. (I favor all) No conversion for furlongs in the text, but we have them linked at first use and the convert template after the chart.  I can convert the miles in text, further fixes... ?  --MTBW
 * "The horse was, incidentally, the" if you're saying "incidentally", is this really necessary for inclusion in an encyclopaedia?
 * It's a thing that mattered to horse people; shutting down Hollywood Park was an enormous big deal, last stakes winner was viewed as significant.  --MTBW
 * "Alan Sherman at right." -> "Alan Sherman (right)."
 * I hate parenthetical phrases, but no big deal in a caption, I guess. Fixed--MTBW
 * "Stakes [82][86]" remove the space between s and [.
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * "plane" is a little colloquial for me.
 * Said "airplane" first time, the subsequent use is common American English. Better? --MTBW
 * You mention "speed horse" but I have no idea what is. Is it like a pacemaker?
 * Good catch, tweaked. Better?  --MTBW
 * "Following the Derby, Sherman told the press that he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby" -> "Following the Derby ... prior to the Derby" in one sentence reads poorly (to me).
 * Tweaked. Better?  --MTBW
 * "Sherman didn't like that" avoid contractions.
 * Fixed. --MTBW
 * " 35 pounds" previously you've used lb and converted to kg...
 * Fixed. --MTBW

More That's it for a quick PR, hopefully some of it will stand you in good stead (no pun intended) for FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Following the Preakness, about 24 hours of press excitement erupted the day after the race" too much time here, maybe "About 24 hours of press ... erupted the day after the Preakness..."?
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * "like he had worn in his" prefer "as he had in..." tighter and less repeat.
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * Any reason to abbreviate EIPH if you don't use the abbreviation?
 * Was potential it might show up again in the article later, probably not now, but hesitant to toss it too soon; Ride On Curlin did just that (started bleeding in a race) in the Belmont, poor fellow. --MTBW
 * "plus aid" just "and aid"
 * Already had an "and" but reworded. --MTBW
 * "and on the following day" no need for "on".
 * OK--MTBW
 * "His first week at the track" you've lost the subject.
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * Is "critter" an encyclopaedic term?
 * Out here in the west it is, pardner! LOL!  Actually, someone else added it, the original source said "marsupial" and I didn't want to crib that word but, I already have "opossum", "creature" and "animal."  I'm out of words!  Will "it" do?  --MTBW
 * " a half-mile (0.5 miles (0.80 km))" I don't think we need to have it explained that "half-mile" is 0.5 miles...!
 * Fixed template.--MTBW
 * "47:69" do you mean 47.69?
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * "back .. the one" in the quote, shouldn't that be an ellipsis rather than just two dots?
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * "was tired for third" tied I guess you mean.
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * I would merge the Twitter account and hashtag information together as they both relate to similar things.
 * "The naysayers also were out in force" this reads a bit tabloid for me.
 * Suggestions for improvement on that one? Trying to include the good with the bad to keep it balanced, though DeFord was sort of the most interesting.
 * In the table, there's a mixture of the use of .5 and 1/2 to represent a half.
 * Convert all to fractions --MTBW
 * Also, the 3.2 should be 3.20 to be consistent with all the other odds formatting.
 * Fixed--BW
 * You have a conversion table for furlongs but not for lengths...
 * We have lengths wikilinked at first use in the text, it's 8 feet, roughly, but also "neck" and "nose" so not as precise as furlongs (which are also linked at first use in the text) Last FAC i worked on, we had problems with the furlong conversions in each chart cell bulking it out, so we moved it,  WP Horse racing articles have not used conversions for lengths in charts; sometimes haven't even converted furlongs... not sure how big a deal this will be...? --MTBW
 * It may be unavoidable but "Lucky Pulpit was sired by Pulpit, a leading sire of 63 stakes winners and particularly known for his son, the successful sire Tapit" contains the word "sire" three times...
 * tightened. Better?  (We can't say "produced" because that's what horse lingo says the mares- mamma horses - do) --MTBW
 * Needs an explanatory note as to what bold text means (and technically, per WP:ACCESS it should be used because some people find it difficult to distinguish from un-bold text....)
 * You are right, I'll figure out something. --MTBW


 * All has been very helpful. Can you pop back through my questions here and see if there is anything I did not fix to your satisfaction?  I hope you will feel OK about weighing in as a supporter (acknowledging PR work) when I do go to FA?  Thank you SO much!  I appreciate your help!   Montanabw (talk)  02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)