Talk:Tristan (horse)

Race Record

Modern sources say 53 runs and 29 wins, so I'm missing a couple of wins. Notice that the Ascot Gold Cup from 1879 to 1885 had one of the strongest runs of winners of any race in history: Isonomy (x2), Robert the Devil, Foxhall, Tristan, St. Simon and St. Gatien.  Tigerboy1966  01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

Let's start the review! Going to use the checklist first and then address points afterwards.

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.	Emphasis on older English and quotes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No concerns.
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.	Missing citations on some wins and losses.
	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).	Missing citations on wins and losses.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Without attribution, I cannot verify and make this determination.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Only focus is on the horse, but is on entire life.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very detailed, no major concerns.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Largely neutral, problems with the horse are supported by citations.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Ha. Stable. No pun intended?
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.	No problems!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No problems!
	7. Overall assessment.	Some issue to take care of, see below.

The majority of the problem deals with the lack of citations on various wins and defeats. While it is not necessary to detail every race result, the fact you have chosen to do so requires the burden of evidence to assert that claim. While finding such results could be extremely difficult, the entire history (you believed to be missing some as well), is not that important compared to the total prizes and the general history, demeanor and status of the horse. If you have everything sourced and cited properly this might jump to FA quality. I believe you know what the matters are so specifically pointing them out will do you little good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I will get on to the issues you have highlighted over the weekend. Very encouraging that you think this has FA potential.  Tigerboy1966  18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that's all the references filled in. The only other issue is "Emphasis on older English and quotes" I think I am going to need some specifics on this.  Tigerboy1966  15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a problem but "shook like a rat" is a weird term as well as "display of temper", but since it comes from the source, the quotations even like ""a very vile-tempered animal" doesn't require quotations. They look like scare-quotes. Another instance, "On 11 May he won the Breeders' Plate over five furlongs at York reversing the Epsom form by beating Angelina "cleverly"." Why "cleverly", he won right? That is all that counts, I don't know how a horse can win 'cleverly', but why the emphasis? All the quotes just look strange when reading the article, even as a quote from the source. I may just be nit-picky, but going into these quotes for every minor attribution or note is odd, paraphrasing is good, but using a two word snippet here and there ruins the flow. Its not something which will prevent it from passing, but it is something to consider for future improvements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the clearest advice I have had on a GA Review. I can see that I over-use quotes from sources when it would be better to just state the facts and use the sources to support what I say. The "cleverly" thing is a good example; it's racing slang to suggest that a horse won more easily than the bare result would suggest, but I can't expect a general reader to pick up on that. And if I didn't want nit-picky comments, I wouldn't have put the article up for GA.  Tigerboy1966  16:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GA's are not about being 'nit-picky' and reviewers shouldn't impose their own criteria, which is why I will pass this regardless of whether or not you fix it. It won't fly on a FA article though, this article is approaching FA level it seems, MOS only has 6 relevant pages and your use of limited context quotes is not specifically mentioned, so it cannot affect whether or not I pass it. As for being the most specific detail in a GA review... I'm shocked, isn't the purpose of a GA is to assess its quality and offer tips for the future on getting the article to FA? La Fleche was already a known issue by you, but these esoteric terms like 'cleverly' are foreign to readers outside of the horse racing, but your own explanation is welcome. The important thing is we know Tristan had a bad disposition with a history of behavior problems, so when I saw "victim" in quotes I really paused and wondered why the use of emphasis or scare quotes. I'll be passing the article soon though. I'm just cleaning up some sidework right now, tedious repetitive work, but I'll pass this article in a few hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice: my previous comment was meant to show that I agreed with everything you said earlier. Sorry if this wasn't clear.  Tigerboy1966  19:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)