Talk:Paradox (horse)

Paradox (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
July 4, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 23, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1885, the racehorse Paradox won the 2000 Guineas in May by a head, but lost the Epsom Derby in June, also by a head?

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 15:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For something completely different, I'll take on this review, which I will hopefully get to later tonight. There are no obvious reasons for quickfail, nor disambiguation or external link problems, so I should be set to go! Canadian Paul 15:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

Under "1884: two-year-old season", "After watching him run impressively in a trial gallop, the Duke of Westminster paid £6,000 for the colt." It would help to use a conversion template into modern day funds here so that the reader can get a better understanding of the value the Duke placed on the horse (same goes for later trading prices as well, if possible).
Maybe this isn't clear to me because I don't know much about horse racing, but how did he gain a "considerable reputation" if he was "inexperienced"?
Same section, "The inexperienced Casuistry colt showed "a little temper" at the start and after running prominently he became unbalanced and lost his position on the downhill section of the course." Since this sentence contains a direct quotation, it requires a citation at least at the end of the sentence, though preferably after the quote, even if it is the same one used later on.
Same section, "to record an easy and impressive three length win from the filly Cora". This seems fairly POV to me. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if this is from a source, then it should have a direct citation and quotation marks; if not, then it should be removed and the reader can decide for themselves whether a three length victory is "easy" or "impressive". There's the same problem a little later under "Summer", second paragraph, "Paradox overtook the leader Reluisant half way down the straight and won very easily by a length at odds of 1/3." - "Very easily" is again just unnecessary POV when everything else in that sentence is factual and would be sufficient to allow a reader to judge whether it was easy or not. Later on in that paragraph "Archer sent him to the front two furlongs from the finish and he won comfortably by three quarters of a length from Royal Hampton." same idea. Under "Autumn", second paragraph, there are two more examples of the problem ("Paradox took the lead in the closing stages and won easily" and "Paradox won impressively"). The latter's POV is somewhat attributed, but the problem is that all these occurrences combined make it seem like the article is telling the readers "What a great horse Paradox was!" rather than allowing them to come to their own decision by reviewing the facts.
The second paragraph under "Autumn" doesn't really make the connection between the incident with the Cambridgeshire Handicap and the spectator's silence at Paradox's victories at subsequent event; this should be clarified, even if per WP:OBVIOUS. Even "although there were none of the open displays of hostility towards Cloete which been feared following the Cambridge Handicap incident" or something similar would concretely link the two events and improve the flow of the section.
The end seems a little disjointed to me and doesn't flow well, almost as if it was tacked on. Maybe the problem is that the three sentences about his life as a stud don't really merit their own section? I'm not sure, but that whole section seems to lack the narrative flow of the rest of article and reads more like a listing of facts.
Regarding source #7, Wikipedia cannot be used a source for other Wikipedia articles. You need to either find the source that the Spanish Wikipedia uses (or another one) or remove this information.
The lead states "he proved himself to be one of the best two-year-olds of his generation by winning the Dewhurst Plate" but the fact that his victory proved him to be one of the best two-year-olds of his generation is nowhere in the body of the article, a violation of WP:LEAD (they lead may not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article). It's arguably implied by what is in the body, but that's such a grand statement that it needs a direct citation.

I did a copyedit, but I will definitely have to return to re-review the article once these points have been addressed. There are other areas in the text where I am concerned about the need for POV words that may be unnecessary even if supported by the sources, but I will analyze those once the above concerns have been dealt with. For the time being I am going to put the article on hold for up to seven days, although I may need to extend that when I'm looking through the references for POV concerns. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 20:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but I happened to spot one howling error in the article's second sentence, which currently begins: "In a career that lasted from September 1851 to July 1853..." JH (talk page) 20:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Thanks. Fixed. Don't know WHAT happened there. Tigerboy1966 20:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra helpful input is always appreciated, especially when it points out something that glaring I missed. Just let me know Tigerboy1966 when you're ready for me to take another look! Canadian Paul 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whenever you're ready. I think I've addressed everything, although you might spot some other improvements needed. Tigerboy1966 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it another read right now. Canadian Paul 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under "1884: two-year-old season", "after running prominently". I'm not sure something can run prominently... maybe a better word or a rephrasing would be good here.
Under "Summer", "The race took place in brilliant weather before an enormous crowd that included the Prince and Princess of Wales." This seems a little on the border of POV... "brilliant" weather may be passable (although I might use a more toned down word, but that's just me), but "enormous" crowd seems like a matter of opinion... I would follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV here again... either directly cite the POV or do something like replace it with an exact/rough number or some other metric and let the reader decide if it was "enormous".
Same section, second paragraph, "in which he carried twelve pounds extra weight for his win in France." Just want to clarify if this is meant to say "for his win" or "from his win".

Once these concerns have been addressed, the article should be ready to go for Good Article status! Canadian Paul 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I hope). 1 and 3 are examples of the kind of jargon which horse racing buffs would instantly understand but which are puzzling for non-specialists: I've tried to clarify the expression. 2 has been rephrased: brilliant => fine; enormous => reportedly "enormous" + citation. Thanks for adding your own corrections and improvements. I reverted "through" to "until" in the second sentence of the lede as the topic is British, and "until" is the normal usage in British English. Tigerboy1966 18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like we're all done here, so I will be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts

Thanks very much for your helpful and detailed comments. I think it's always better when a non-horse racing type does the review: you tend to be much better at spotting examples of technical language which we at Project Horse Racing tend to assume are generally understood. Reading the article again earlier today I had a feeling that it would get pulled up for some POV issues. I'll make sure everything is either sourced or cut down. I'd completely forgotten about the link to Spanish Wikipedia: I think I put it in as a placeholder till I found something better. It will get to the end of the week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) before I get the chance to do the improvements. Tigerboy1966 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather I added my responses/changes to the list/text above or kept them as a separate section?

Point 7 addressed: replaced the Spanish Wikipedia link. What do you think? Tigerboy1966 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of the week is fine - the seven day limit is a guideline and not a strict deadline. As long as work is being done to improve the article, I'm not going to be sitting here watching my clock, so take the time you need - my main concern is the improvement of the article. As for how you add your responses/changes, please do whatever works best for you, I'm flexible with whatever style. As for the link that replaced the Spanish Wikipedia, it still cannot qualify as a reliable source because, among other sources, it references Wikipedia. Maybe something on the list of references on that page, however, will have the information that you are looking for. Canadian Paul 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 26/6

I have replaced the Cloete source with two new ones: a cricketing obituary which mentions his birthplace and the fact that he owned Paradox, and a book source which mentions his mining interests. Also started to tone down pov (in "Summer")

I have rearranged the "Stud career"" so it seems less choppy. The stud record of a Thoroughbred racehorse is important to the "story", even when there isn't much to say (as in this case). It's not as if they spend their "retirement" attending fundraisers and improving their golf handicap.

I MUST remember to fill in edit summaries. It will make this process much easier. Tigerboy1966 20:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 27/6

Point 1. It's difficult to say what the equivalent of £6,000 in 1884 would be today, but I have given the value of that year's Derby (with ref) to give an idea of the size of the sums involved.

Point 2. I think this is a little clearer now. Horses can still build up a reputation without actually running. An Irish colt named Mars, who has yet to appear on the racecourse, is currently joint-favourite for next year's Derby.

Point 3. I have shifted the reference so it appears right after the quotation.

I'll keep chipping away. Tigerboy1966 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1/7

Added to stud career to show "legacy". Added reference to support naming & status as generation leader. Split lede into two paragraphs. Tigerboy1966 12:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3/7

Tidied duplicate reference. Added detail on 2000 Guineas. Did another proof read. Tigerboy1966 18:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]