Jump to content

Talk:1973 Kentucky Derby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please source and state weather and track conditions

[edit]

...to make the article encyclopedic. As it stands, the article just repeats information readily available at the official Derby and other common sites, and articles on the race's winner. As well, it relies too much on the long quote, which is too substantial a portion of the overall article. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1973 Kentucky Derby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 21:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article, comments below the chart

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See comments below
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See comments below
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Sources themselves are appropriate
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Preliminary assessment indicates no copyvio, but will recheck prior to passing Earwig says it's clean
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments below
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. (Resisting urge to pun on "stable" in a horse article)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Appropriate fair use rationale provided for single image
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
Comments
  • Overall, I am really glad to see a Kentucky Derby article going up for GAN, so kudos to you for this effort. I do think it's not quite there yet, and shall offer some advice to get it up to par. I will put up the "on hold" tag, but if it takes you more than seven days to fix it, don't fret, I'll stay on board with you for the time needed so long as progress is happening.
done
  • I will first refer you to the Glossary of North American horse racing‎ and suggest that where there isn't already an article on a concept, you use its entries to wikilink any horse racing "jargon" (which I call technical language) for the non-expert reader. (link to the letter of the alphabet for the word you wikilink, for example [[Glossary of North American horse racing‎#H|hit the board]] ) I spotted quite a few of these and when I've had non-horsey reviewers of my GAs and FAs, most of the time they ask me to link such phrases. Some words in question include:
  • Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 14:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly fond of the race play-by-play in the lead, it is distracting particularly when you mention in the first sentence the most salient points -- that Secretariat beat Sham. Also, nowhere in the lead (or the article) do you mention that the 1:59 and 2/5 is, I think, still the Derby record. More to the point, something from the "aftermath" section DOES need to be in the lead; the lead is a summary of the entire article.
Shortened it. Disc Wheel (T + C) 03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest an overall copyedit. I know when you are pushing an article to GA you can get cross-eyed, but here are some things that jumped out at me:
    • The phrase "the race" appears 35 times in the article, three times in the first paragraph of the lead. Try to break that up a little.
Gotten it down to single digits I believe; will drop further once I figure out what I need to do with the critics things you brought up. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other phrases also are a bit over used, "Wood Memorial Stakes" can be subsequently be shortened to "Wood Memorial" or even "The Wood." (While we are on the Wood, for comprehensiveness, is it worth mentioning the mouth abcess issue that cost Secretariat a win in that race? Not a requirement for GAN, just thinking)
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The phrase "Secretariat's loss at the Wood Memorial Stakes in New York was his first defeat since his professional debut as a two-year old, where he was disqualified after winning the race." is very awkward, it makes it unclear if he was disqualified in his maiden race or in the Wood.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you could do a bit more on how the Wood was the critical prep for the Derby, noting things like Angle Light winning up in the Wood's section and Sham beating Secretariat there (Secretariat was third).
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references need a few things fixed
done
    • You are inconsistent in use of the "publisher=" parameter on the newspaper articles, for example, the New York Times cites mostly all add (New York Times Company) but the Washington Post does not. IMHO, you don't need the publisher parameter in those cases, but whether you use it or not, at least be consistent across all newspaper citations.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where you can add a url link to these old articles (such as if you found them in Google Newspapers), please do add the link, as it aids verification. Even if the link goes to a snippet or Highbeam archive, it is helpful. For example, I know the New York Times has archives, and even a link to the excerpt is helpful.
Did for the one's I could; although I have been told in other GA reviews that the url is not necessary. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's OK to cite directly to hardcopy, but where you actually DID access a source online, it's best to provide a link to exactly what you were looking at, even if you accessed via a subscription-only source such as HighBeam. Guides reviewers to proper sources. (I once reviewed an FAC where the editor had falsified sources, so I'm pretty big on verifiability these days). Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used proquest that I get access through my university, but this will take some more time to re-find the articles; so I'll work on that. Now done! Disc Wheel (T + C) 03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need multiple citations for minor facts that are not terribly controversial. For example, you don't need three sources to verify that Secretariat was the favorite. (And if one of them is to verify that he lost his prior race, put THAT source after the comma earlier in the sentence)
Rearranged. Disc Wheel (T + C) 03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some writing and style suggestions:
    • "Race favorites and participants" is not a really great section heading. Perhaps "Pre-race analysis" or something...
  • Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 14:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there any reason ever stated why there were only 13 starters instead of 20? (I know in that era, less than full fields were not uncommon, but did writers of the time -- or since -- discuss why?) If no reason given, maybe don't make that the very first statement in the paragraph. If no real clear reason, just rephrase to something like "13 starters, though up to 20 horses were allowed in the gate"... or even just "13 starters."
None of the articles give a reason, but I rephrased it. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Lucien Laurin had his second consecutive horse with the derby, " There's a typo or poor phrasing in there. Also, capitalize "Derby."
Fixed Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sham's jockey, Laffit Pincay Jr., stated when Secretariat pulled alongside Sham, Pincay believed he " Needs rephrasing. Other quotes in that paragraph are also a bit awkward.
Fixed Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Race summary" section could be expanded a bit, for example, in Sham's article, it mentions he knocked out some of his teeth on the starting gate; if you can source that, it's interesting, particularly that he did as well as he did with such an injury.
Honestly don't know how I would expand this too much more, besides the Sham thing if I can find a source; none of the articles I have found have had too much actual race summary. Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a bit of looking, you improved the content here and if I think you need to expand, I'll see what can be sourced. There are a crapload of books about Secretariat, surely at least one ought to be in Google Books; I'll see what I can find. Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DOne. Disc Wheel (T + C) 21:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done
    • The "Attendance" section doesn't need to be a separate section, it can be combined with "Event details." It also needs a rewrite, it is rather clunky as written. Also, if you are discussing that the attendance record was broken the next year, it would be worth noting the figures for 1974 and if increased interest in the race that following year was attributable in part to Secretariat winning the Triple Crown.
Fixed Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't have the odds listed as monetary amounts, use ratios or decimal (see, e.g. 2015 Kentucky Derby for a better way to do the chart), the potential payout is irrelevant and it looks odd. Do add the purse money (or "stake") won by the top finishers.
Why is have the payout a bad thing to have? I feel its relevant considering I do bring up the handle of the event and since betting is a prominent part of horse racing. Adds some context. Disc Wheel (T + C) 03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The payouts are fine, they are at the bottom of the chart, it's the chart odds listed as money instead of just numerals that was weird. Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added stake to the results table. Disc Wheel (T + C) 04:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think I removed what you wanted gone. Disc Wheel (T + C) 11:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done
    • "Aftermath" is not a great section heading -- sounds like a natural disaster. Better to use a more neutral and accurate phrase, such as "Analysis" or "Assessment"...
Fixed Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your hard work! The source fixes helped. I did find archives for the Chicago Tribune, but not the articles cited here... curious where you found them... do you have a book or a proprietary online database access? NYT is good. I responded to one question and shall now go over and review your changes. I'll ping you when I'm done with the second round. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay in response intially, just didn't get on wikipedia. Bear with me as this is a new type of article for me put work in on. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I did this round is go through the article and use hidden text <!--this is what hidden test looks like in the edit window--> to flag where I would like to see changes. You can toss it all as you read and make any comments or ask questions here.
  • As I did the above, I saw some minor copyedits that were easier to just do than to explain. If you don't like them, I'm not terribly wedded to them and do not want to take over the article itself, so toss what isn't working for you.
  • I also realized that what is missing are some things to meet the "coverage" aspect of the GA criteria, so a few additional things I'd suggest doing are listed below: Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • this source mentions that Angle Light was actually linked with Secretariat in the betting... worth a minor mention(bettors care about stuff like that, bet one, you get them both, a two-for-one betting deal), as in "trained by Lucien Lauren and run as a single betting entry"
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same source also mentions some of the races won by the various contenders. I've made a hidden text comment about expanding info about the field, and this source alone would get you there... that Sham won the Santa Anita Derby, Our Native won the Flamingo Stakes, Royal and Regal won the Florida Derby, My Gallant won the Blue Grass Stakes, Impecunious won the Arkansas Derby, and so on. Give the reader more of a sense of the players and their context.
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, expand on why Secretariat was the favorite, not just that he lost the Wood. His record shows he entered the Derby off a 9:7-1-1 record, and for example won the Gotham Stakes.(Equibase record) Also, right up front, I'd mention that he was 1972 Horse of the Year (source is this).
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some book sources you haven't used yet and may be worth looking at are these:
  • Chapter 7 of this little book is quite good. It mentions more on the field, noting that Forego ran (that horse became a big deal later and should be noted in this article) p. 130 notes the bit about how Sham hit his mouth on the gate at the start. Actually the book has a very detailed play-by-play of the race too, may be useful to expand, even with the finish omitted from the preview. Also has the bit about how Secretariat ran each quarter faster than the previous one, the fastest Derby in history, and so on.
  • Bill Nack's book] is good, though the Google version isn't paginated, so it may not be super-useful here, but could give you background if you need it.
Would it be possible to move everything that I've completed and we're done discussing underneath some collapsible banner, I feel this is getting kinda cluttered. Anywho, I've responded and fixed some more things you've outlined. Disc Wheel (T + C) 03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely getting way better. Lead is much improved, phrasing is getting better and so on. At this point, a bit of expansion as noted above and cleanup of any remaining hidden text is where I'd encourage you to focus. For the race commentary, the two books I noted above have rather breathless and overly detailed analysis, but are very, very thorough. In the paragraphs above (and in some hidden text) I mentioned what I found and noted above the sources where I found the info. Expand the prep season, work on organizing what the "pundits" said all in one place, and expand the race details a bit (from the books you can note more on who was in the field, the horse that acted up and delayed the start, which horses were paired in the betting, Sham hitting his head, etc..) and I'll be pretty happy. Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess could you elucidate more on which things I need to alter for the paragraph you want about critics/people's opinions of the horses. other than that I just need to bring to light the part about being trained by the same guy for the horses in the paragraph above. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw:Also should the forego stuff be discussed in the analysis? Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Disc Wheel:: I'd say you are 90% there, your last round of changes made a big difference. To simplify matters, I took a small wikignoming whack at the article myself (if you disagree with my changes, feel free to alter them or discuss) and added hidden text of suggested additional edits where I think they might be good -- I am not wedded to my phrasing, but I hope the concepts make sense. The only other thing I wonder is if, given that the proquest sites won't open for anyone who is not a subscriber, perhaps you can truncate the URLs, perhaps ending each after the "pdf?" section (I suspect that ProQuest subscribers can find each with just that first bit of the URL.) Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find a way for the proquest stuff, but the only change I don't understand is why the part about the wood memorial comes after the derby entrants paragraph, I feel like that should go before. Disc Wheel (T + C) 11:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got the sources for proquest, I believe. Disc Wheel (T + C) 02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I think I've adressed all issues. Disc Wheel (T + C) 11:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence probably doesn't matter, the original problem was that the views of the pundits were split up into two places. Whatever works and makes it flow is cool with me (sometimes it takes a couple of whacks before everything falls into place. I'll take a more thorough look in a couple hours and get back to you. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-GAN

[edit]

I'm going to take a whack at that middle section about the pre-race period. Revert anything I mess up! Montanabw(talk) 07:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1973_Kentucky_Derby&oldid=1199100576"