Talk:Danehill Dancer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danehill Dancer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will tackle this review. I am going to say right off that the long progeny list needs to go. See WP:PROSE and WP:DISCRIMINATE, #3. It would work better to create a prose paragraph (or at the most two) focusing primarily on the Group 1 winners that are already blue links. You do need to do a copyedit, I quickly spotted errors such as "he fee had risen massively to" (and probably should chop "massively" as that's a bit POV - minor, but unneeded adjectives usually should go) Sourcing looks good structurally, but a bit too heavy on Racing Post, be good if you can find some additional sources from newspapers and the like. Also, "D (F)" in the chart is not ideal, I like that you are trying to keep it narrow, but only horse people are going to realize that the raw number is distance in furlongs. I'll do a more comprehensive analysis of the more nitpicky aspects of the GA criteria after the bigger issues are addressed. I presume you've checked all the usual sources and cannot find any free image of him, of him in his races, or any progeny? Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• just chipping in- there are definitely images of Dylan Thomas (horse) and Rock of Gibraltar (horse) in those articles. Tigerboy1966  09:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have changed F to F which still saves space but links to the explanation. Tigerboy1966  17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, I've done the same for lengths as well. I've now changed the progeny list into a couple of paragraphs. It's still reasonably long, but he is probably better know as a sire than for his racing career anyway. It is hard to find newspaper articles from the time when he was racing, but I've cut some of the RP refs and added an additional bloodhorse one. Regarding pictures, I couldn't find any of Danehill Dancer himself, although I'm not that experienced in searching for them. There is the one of Dancing Rain already included of course. Cheers, Edwarddutton (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Improving! I would also like to see the lede rewritten and expanded a bit, (two paragraphs are a desirable minimum for a G-class article) emphasizing precisely what you've said above, that his notability is as a breeding stallion. I'd like to see something like "Danehill Dancer is the sire of (a kazillion) Group 1 winners including successful offspring such as (Larry, Curly, Moe). In 2009 alone his progeny did (yada, yada, yada) for which he was named champion sire in Great Britain and Ireland that year. (then new para) By (sire) out of (dam) He had a (moderately successful racing career that included Group 1 wins in blah blah, blah) and was trained by Neville Callaghan. He is(still?) owned by Michael Tabor, and has stood at Coolmore Stud since (year), though was retired from stud duty in 2014... you get the idea. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

His final season could do with some more detail I think - his last race was in May 1997, but he was retired at the end of the season. Did an injury keep him off the course during the rest of 1997, where there planned targets for him etc? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. It seems like he actually shuttled to Australia to cover mares in 1997, but didn't produce much of note. I'll update and source this properly in the morning. Edwarddutton (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've now clarified this, and also expanded the lead quite a bit. Edwarddutton (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting much better. Might want to clarify that it was only in 1997 that he didn't do muchin Australia, if he in fact sired top notch foals there later. I don't like the parenthetical "which Tabor is involved with" in the lede, perhaps clarify Tabor's involvement in body text but just note Coolmore in the stud section of the lead. Also, maybe the first sentence should establish notability, not the second paragraph. Use your own words, but try something like "Danehill Dancer (foaled 20 January 1993) is an Irish-bred, British-trained Thoroughbred racehorse who became a notable sire of (stats) Group 1 winners and yada yada other cool things. Trained by... " Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I've addressed these issues now. See what you think. Edwarddutton (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking way better. I think that I still would like to see the bit on Michael Tabor "being involved with" Coolmore either expanded or chopped, and also while the horse's yearling price is sourced in the article, the source cited (As I read it) doesn't say it was Tabor who bought him (I know, I'm nitpicking, but this IS GAN) may want to verify and add a source on that -- I also find that parentheticals add little in such cases. To wit, this article says that Tabor is a partner in Coolmore, though this article sounds like his relationship is more complicated. I see at Michael_Tabor#Horseracing there is some discussion of HOW he is involved, and I did a wee bit of research to see what he's up to now, found this, this. Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But really, all I'm really after is a simple rewrite on Tabor, Coolmore and retirement that fleshes things out a bit (do it in your own words though feel free to steal anything I suggest that looks good to you). Do something that kills both the parentheses and is more precise, such as "Following X race, he was retired, having won X amount of purse money.(cite) He went to Coolmore stud to stand as a sire; Tabor is (was?) one of Coolmore's investors. (I think you can source that, - or partner or whatever-he-is).(cite)" Then, you repeat the standing at stud in Australia at the end of the 1997 section and again at the beginning of the stud career section, so I'd chop one or the other and say - wherever you keep it - something like "As it was late in the season for him to cover mares in Ireland (presuming you can source that bit), he was sent to Australia in to stand for the 1997 Southern Hemisphere season (cite). Returning to Ireland, where he covered mares beginning in 1998,(cite) Does this make sense? (while you are at it, people not into horse breeding might not know stallions are shipped internationally, did he go to Au every year or often?? Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

On the comprehensiveness issue, I have had some concerns about the heavy dependence on the Racing Post for details of individual races and a lack of sources with summary or analysis. But I don't like to offer a critique without a solution, so I did a bit of Googling and located this article, which said he was the two year old champion in Ireland, which you don't mention in this article and that appears rather significant, and I found this which commemorates his 100th stakes winner in 2009, also worth adding to the article, I think, particularly as that was his big year to win the stallion award. Be interesting if there is a list of stakes winners to date, how many does he have now? Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally, given how many, many, many horses this stallion sired, you need to provide some analysis and summary rather than a list made into a paragraph. Lists are dull and disfavored, but the stud career section now is virtually unreadable due to all the parenthetical references to the various races won by his offspring. My view is if you think you insert a parenthesis, you probably actually don't need the content at all (or could use end footnotes). For example, you could say "Danehill Dancer's stud career (got some attention?) when his 2004 foal crop began racing. That group included the American Grade I winner Alexander Tango, Australian winners Arapaho Miss and Light Fantastic, Irish Group I winner Miss Beatrix, and (year) Singapore Gold Cup winner Risky Business.[24][25] The following season he produced Atomic Force, who later won (two really important southern hemisphere races) and (year) Hong Kong Derby winner Super Satin.[25] "

Basically, this article is well-sourced, but it is too dependent on a single source (racing post), needs some work on the "sparkling prose" bit, and it fails to tell us enough about why we should care about all these stats (which ARE comprehensive, just not analyzed) - given that this horse will not sire any more foals, we need to look to analysis, summaries and a legacy, not a laundry list. Am I making sense here?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edwarddutton: Ran reflinks for you on your last two citations. I'll sit tight for a few more days to let you address things, but you are basically a copyedit and a bit of "sparkling prose" away from getting the green badge here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Montanabw, unfortunately Edwarddutton hasn't edited on Wikipedia for four weeks, since the day before you pinged him. Unless someone else is willing to do the copyedit, it may be time to close this as unsuccessful. It can always be resubmitted again once the issues you've noted have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's very close. I'll see if @Tigerboy1966: can address some issues. There isn't much left to do, would hate to see this one fail. Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

would the significant progeny look better as a table as at Sunday Silence. Tigerboy1966  08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything would be an improvement over the unreadable wall of blue in there now. An annotated table with a nice intro might be just the ticket. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I knocked this up here User:Tigerboy1966/sandbox15. I would, of course, put the refs back in and include the prose in an introductory section. Tigerboy1966  20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not bad; I'd add a small column at the end for the citation (the article has them) and another column for "notes" for those horses where a notation about something is significant. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Montanabw, it's been over three weeks since the last post here (and the last edit on the article). What else needs to be done here? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Basically, User:Edwarddutton needs to pop back by and see if he is OK with User:Tigerboy1966's idea of the chart to replace the long prose section about progeny. I think most other issues have been addressed. Edward takes long wikibreaks like this, so I'm not too concerned. I'd prefer we keep this open a bit longer rather than close and just do it all over again. It's quite close to passing. Tigerboy might also be willing to finish it up, I've pinged them both. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Montanabw, so far as I know, User:Edwarddutton does not WP:OWN the article, for all that he nominated it. His absence has continued for another month. If you believe the article meets GA standards with Tigerboy1966's proposed changes, then as GA reviewer it's certainly in your power to pass it during his extended break, just as it's in your power to bring it to GAR if Edwarddutton comes back after it's listed and changes the relevant section so, in your opinion, it's not GA-worthy. This nomination has now been open for over 100 days, which is excessive by any stretch of the imagination, and needs to be wrapped up now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, @Tigerboy1966:, all that's left is that mess of a section on the progeny. It doesn't have to be a chart, but the way it reads now, it's like the "begats" in Genesis and something hads to happen. Can you do some cleanup? If Edward shows up later, he can discuss your changes. Montanabw^(talk) 08:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, it's been another two weeks; Tigerboy1966 hasn't touched the article in over a month, and this is now the oldest GA review at over 115 days. I first pinged a month and a half ago, well over the "a bit longer" you wanted back then. If this hasn't made significant progress by the time it hits the four-month-old mark in just under a week, then I do think it deserves to be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must conclude that you are correct. It is sad that this article would fail over basically one dreadful paragraph from hell. I could probably fix it myself, but then I am "involved" and not a neutral reviewer. Perhaps I could fail it for now, but then fix it and renominate it on behalf of the lead editor? Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)