Talk:Duke of Marmalade/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I will review this over the next day or two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

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 below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good
	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 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).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	In depth enough for me
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In a biography of a person, I'd question the pedigree. For horse racing, I'll accept it.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A couple dodgy bits Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable within definition
	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.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Good

Comments

1A

Overall

• Tense agreement -- DoM is still alive, but he is referred to in the past tense in the background section.

Done.

• A few too many words that are not understandable to the general public (i.e. people who don't follow horse racing), or would be better in more general wording. For example, "won by a neck" --> "won narrowly", "starting 11/4 favourite" (?), "to make all the running on the colt" (?) etc.

added "x-1" form equivalents to 4/6, 11/4. Explained "Neck" as "quarter of a length" Changed "make all the running" to "lead throughout the race"

• Too many one-sentence paragraphs. Try merging them or otherwise finding a way to cut back on them.

Done.

• Conditions race is linked at least 5 times. Once or twice should be enough.

took out three, one left for Group One, one for Group Two

Background

• Perhaps a way to give the information about Danehill and Love Me True as they are introduced, instead of having separate paragraphs about them?

Racing career

• "sent up to challenge in the straight" Huh? changed to "moved forward to challenge the leaders"
• "He ran prominently..." -- Any way to make it more neutral. changed to raced in third place

2A

• Reference needed: One paragraph in background, several in career, one sentence in assessment, honours and awards.

Rephrased and referenced assessment sentence (I had a feeling it might be problematic)

• One of the new references is unformatted (FN48), other sentences are still missing references. reference (FN48) formated

• "During this winless period he was sometimes regarded as little more than a pacemaker for more celebrated stable companions such as Dylan Thomas." Nowhere in the article outside the lede. Considered as such by whom?

The Daily Telegraph. Ref added.

• http://www.galopp-sieger.de/ - Where is the direct link to the information? Don't forget the language parameter for your references. Changed reference for alternative version

4

• "The field of twenty-four split into two groups, and Duke of Marmalade was always in contention on the stands side before staying on well to finish fourth to Cockney Rebel" and a couple other things like this.

re-wrote this sentence-looking for other examples Taken out a couple of "goods" and a "well"

• I've put a couple of hidden comments and clean-up tags. I will do the remainder of the review tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "bay" added wikilink, removed message
• "starts" changed to races removed message
• "field of twenty-four" changed to "field of twenty-four runners" left message in place, hope "field" is acceptable
• "back in distance" added from "twelve furlongs to ten and a half furlongs" left message in place- is this clear enough
• "asked him" changed to "attempted to make a forward move" removed message
• "out of" left as it is. difficult to rephrase without getting anthropomorphic- mother, father etc

• Okay, I just need to do some spot checks and we should be golden. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just noticed: Your references have the work in the publisher's field. I'll change one, and you should fix the rest. Spotchecks look fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Never knew about that work/publisher distinction. I'll get onto it right away.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed "publisher"-->"work" for newspaper/magazine refsTigerboy1966 (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The "work" parameter automatically italicizes the title of the work, so the ''Racing Post'' and whatnot is unnecessary. Also, check your automatic references as some seem to be less than ideal. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be so much bother, but can you give me an example of one of the less than ideal refs?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• FN 31 and 51. If those are the authors, then I'm a Throughbred's uncle. It's generally a good idea to double check the results when using the reference bot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Reflinks makes things too easy. Will fix. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good. Passing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Good learning experience for me.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)