Talk:Beholder (horse)

Article improvement discussion

• Hey all, with 20 races to enter into the chart, can everyone double-check my work? I can easily screw something up, all that fine print. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Need wikignoming edit to get all the dates fixed to USA mdy format. Probably wise to double-check US v. UK spellings too.

• @Vesuvius Dogg: Want to tackle pedigree analysis? Here's a starting place: Pedigree analysis:Beholder Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I'll put my hand up to check on both the table entries & the date formats; will be able to do both in the next 6 hours or so. Also, do we want all the authors in the ref as "FamilyName, FirstName"? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt, format the same as we did in American Pharoah, our last horse racing FAC! Authors with names (as opposed to press releases) are always last name, first name. And we always use the templates...generally cite web for consistency (unless a book or a video, of course). The goal is FA quality even if we only take it to GA. Always easier in the long run to do it right than to do it over. Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll pick this up and go through it shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Prose

All good, with a few suggestions below:

1 Lead

• "Beholder … is an American Thoroughbred racehorse": shouldn't "Thoroughbred" be lower case?
  • See below ~-- MW

2 Background

• "no white markings bred by the Clarkland": Comma between markings and bread? (No problem if you think there isn't in AmEng
  • Fixed by WAM -- MTBW
• 'as "straightforward," explaining': per WP:LQ the comma should go outside the quote marks
  • Fixed --MTBW

3 2015

• Is "prep race" encyclopaedic? A preparatory race would be more formally correct, if its not some technical terminology
  • Changed to "preparatory" - it's about half-technical terminology, but more likely just an extremely common laziness! --MTBW

Refs

• FN1 is equineline.com; FN2 is Equibase.com: be consistent with the capitalisation
  • Fixed. --MTBW
• FN5 is a dead link
  • Tossed it, not needed anyway. Also fixed a minor thing that needed to be clarified and moved the sources out of the lede and into the body with accompanying text. does that work? --MTBW
• There are a few SHOUTY refs that should be in lower case
  • I think I got them all fixed now - check? --MTBW
• FN 28 has Racing Post, which should be italicised. The link also shows no info ("No race found")
  • Swapped refs. I think User:Tigerboy1966 has members-only access to the Racing Post... or else I can't access it from the USA. Or something. But fixed now. --MTBW
• Is it The Blood-Horse or BloodHorse.com (as in FNs 30 and 31, but in several others too)? Pick one and be consistent throughout
  • I tried to fix all to The Blood-Horse, let me know if I missed any. --MTBW
• FN45 is International Federation of Horseracing Authorities; FN46 is International Federation of Horseracing Authorities: formatting should be consistent
  • Fixed, I think. --MTBW

Coverage

• Appears to cover all the main points as far as I can see
• As far as I can tell from a non-expert position, this appears to be written from a NPOV
• References are reliable and, (apart from a couple of minor formatting issues above), are suitable, accurate and verifiable

Images

• All good: licences appear correct; alts in place

Stable

• Article appears stable, with no warring or problems either in the edit history or on the talk page

Excellent work and on hold for the moment for the minor points above to be addressed. – SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

On the capitalization, there's a formal consensus by WP:EQUINE that yes, the proper name is 'American Thoroughbred' not 'American thoroughbred'. I've been dealing with capitalization issues lately, and the word is capitalized now, after a long, ridiculous battle. (In the horse industry, the capitalized term 'Thoroughbred' refers to the specific breed of horse, while the uncapitalized 'thoroughbred' refers to any purebred horse.) White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

WAM, our "local consensus" isn't policy on WP, don't fret about it. The breed isn't "American T/thoroughbred" in either case, it's just "T/thoroughbred." And no, we NEVER call purebred horses of other breeds "thoroughbreds"; that's actually very incorrect terminology. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I'll go whichever way you want to go on the capitalization issue for the word "Thoroughbred" because it's not an edit war-worthy issue. I favor capitalization because we are talking an animal breed, an as such it is my position that we treat breed names as proper nouns, and thus capitalized. Basically, it's a technical language question, and capitalization of animal breed and species names is part of a set of capitalization "wars" that go across multiple WP animal articles and the disputes have, at times, been so nasty that they make the infobox wars look like a session of Kumbayah.  :-P Essentially, the American Jockey Club capitalizes it, (though even they have some inconsistency, see 6 of 7 uses here The UK Jockey Club also does (here), but a lot of "generic" style manuals state that one does not capitalize animal breed names (poodle, beagle, etc..) so there is a legitimate debate. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you're happy with the capitalisation, then run with it: as long as it's a conscious thing you've considered then I have no issue either way. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, and I also did a bit of reworking of the lede, see if the changes are OK. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nice work on the lead, and the article as a whole. Passes the GA criteria as far as I can see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Updates

Articles. Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/gary-stevens-bad-news-classic-rivals-beholder-only-just-reaching-her-peak

No white?

@Montanabw: A reader ( ticket:2016110510014238 ) Claims that the horse has two small white beauty marks on her face above and near her right eye. Could someone check this claim out? Thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

She does have two small white specks on her forehead. [1] I'll adjust the article accordingly. Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beholder (horse). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160911104434/http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/DMR082016USA9.pdf to http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/DMR082016USA9.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• The "Breeding career" section is entirely unsourced and reads like a list. This should include citations and be written into fewer paragraphs.
• The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, as it is missing information from the "Background" and the "Breeding career" sections.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)