Talk:La Fleche (horse)

La Fleche (horse) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

George Barrett and the Derby

I know the comments on La Fleche's Derby defeat are borderline WP:OR. I'm trying to think of a better way of expressing the issues. The thing that really struck me was that no-one in the immediate aftermath of the race seemed to think that Barrett had done anything wrong. The legend- that he was drunk, mentally unbalanced or just plain incompetent has become entrenched and is repeated without question in a lot of non-contemporary sources. If he had ridden such a rotten race, why did he retain the ride for the Oaks, in which, by all accounts, he rode an absolute cracker? The form suggests that La Fleche was about 8 to 10 pounds below her best form in both her races at Epsom in June 92. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:La Fleche (horse)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

The article only has one major concern to prevent it from passing. Prose, images, everything checks out and I am surprised by how many newspaper articles which were cited. La Fleche's derby defeat stands out as OR:

"There were many later claims that La Fleche’s defeat had been a "fluke" and Barrett was criticised for giving her too much ground to make up.[26] This version of events, however, is hardly supported by contemporary accounts, which state that the filly was in a "capital position" throughout the race. Another possible explanation for her poor performance was that she may have been in season: reports make clear that she was saddled and paraded separately from the colts for reasons that correspondents chose not to particularise.[23]" The 26th source says it was no signs of being a fluke. And when I was reading the article I cannot find evidence that says she may have been in season. This comes off as WP:OR as mentioned previously. Particular care must be given to the matter of this defeat and it seems to be speculation. Perhaps I am just reading the matter wrong, but I cannot find evidence that the events were as described. Barring proper citations, I'd suggest simply detailing the loss and putting the speculation aside.

Do this and it will pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought this bit was dodgy and said so on the talkpage. I'm afraid it was a case of wanting to get my "pet theory" into the article. The "in season" thing is hinted at behind the decorous Victorian prose, but not stated. I'll have a hunt round over the weekend (till 7th May) to see if I can find anything more concrete, otherwise I will remove it. The theory will probably have to wait for "That Book which I Will Never Get Round to Writing". I will do a double check on sources as well: sometimes when editing I rearrange sentences and paragraphs, and the refs end up misplaced. Tigerboy1966 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be a sound theory it just doesn't have the evidence to back it up. Sorry, but I cannot let that be included. I also did the review on Tristan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the reference to La Fleche probably being in season and rearranged the paragraph. I have added two later sources which criticise Barrett. One is a book source. Tigerboy1966 19:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All set. I'll pass this! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]