Template:Did you know nominations/Lethal Force

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 10:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lethal Force

(

)

... that the Irish-bred, British-trained racehorse Lethal Force set a new course record when he won this year's July Cup at Newmarket by one and half lengths?

Comment: Not a self-nom. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

5x expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 17:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC).

The sixth reference goes to the website's home page. I will review the article once that is fixed. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The referenced sentence is about where the horse is trained. The training facility's address is posted on the trainer's website's homepage. So I am not sure what is there to fix. (I'm considering removing the whole sentence, though.) --PFHLai (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will start the review now. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was expanded enough, is long enough, reliably referenced, and has no copyright problems. The end of some sections have no inline citations, but they are referenced directly after it. The hook is properly cited and no QPQ is needed because this is not a self-nomination. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I was reading sources and I'm not sure what I was thinking. The end of the unreferenced paragraphs are not referenced to anything. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The scores are indeed referenced as I said earlier, but it seems like original research is being used to expand on that into sentences. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. May I ask where the problematic text is, please? Perhaps some {cn} tags, please? I'll check with the author and see if he can provide proper footnotes, or revise the text as needed. --PFHLai (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I sure can. The places are where only the stats are used as references. For example, "Lethal Force began his three-year-old season by dropping back in class for a maiden race over five and a half furlongs at Bath Racecourse on 20 April. Ridden by John Fahy, he started at odds of 30/100 and won easily by nine lengths." The stats page only says information about the final score and a little bit more information. The source doesn't say anything close to "began his three-year-old season by dropping back in class for a maiden race over five and a half furlongs at Bath Racecourse on 20 April. Ridden by John Fahy, he started at odds of 30/100 and won easily by nine lengths". I don't know where the creator was getting this information. SL93 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

erm..., that is exactly what the source says. Maybe you are having problems viewing the relevant pages? Tigerboy1966 18:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Also the race summaries DO say all these things, but they use a lot of abbreviations. I understand these abbreviations and they clearly support the information. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then the references are not directly after the stated facts. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As I reviewed the article, most references you have concerns about followed ALL the stated facts contained within. No need to add the same source after every sentence when it covers several. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This source doesn't say what the sentence says. It only says the final stats, the horse, its age, its owner, and its jockey. Were are you getting such things as "a maiden race" and the horse's early statistics? SL93 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look carefully you will see the words "PERI LTD MEDIAN AUCTION MAIDEN STAKES" at the top of the page. Tigerboy1966 21:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your point? It doesn't say a maiden race. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't say "over five and a half furlongs" and that he "won easily". SL93 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, SL93, it DOES. That source is a typical race results report from a highly reliable source. It is loaded with abbreviations and jargon, so I will help you out here It clearly says (at the top) that this is a "maiden" race. The abbreviation "5½f" says the race was five and a half furlongs. Then, if you click the link that says "Show all comments in running" (which doesn't alter the URL of the link), it reads "Tracked leaders, led over 1f out, shaken up briefly to draw clear entering final furlong, easily (op 4-7 tchd 8-13)" which is where the editor sourced "won easily" Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Another example is this source. It does not say that he "ran four times as a two-year-old without winning", how he began his career, and what he accomplished during the beginning and middle of the Goodwood race. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, what source says "he showed potential" and "emerged as one of the leading sprinters in the world"? SL93 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I noticed the "Show all comments in running", but anyway, I will leave this for someone else to review. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

~~Someone else can review this. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)~~

OK, I will do so. Adding comments below. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also see that the creator has been fixing some things that I mentioned. ~~I don't feel like doing an indepth review of this. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)~~

OK, I will do so. Adding comments below. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Added sources to back up the "ran four times as a two-year-old without winning" and "emerged as one of the leading sprinters in the world" statements. As for "what he accomplished during the beginning and middle of the Goodwood race", I would imagine that he galloped along in a more or less straight line with a jockey on his back. Tigerboy1966 22:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I clarified the "one of the leading sprinters in the world" statement. One writer for Racing Post said that which doesn't make it true. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed the ref for one from the IFHA World Thoroughbred Rankings. Tigerboy1966 22:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I will continue the review, but in parts. These parts are not referenced - that it was the first time that Adam Kirby rode him and that Kirby attempted to repeat the tactics he employed at Newbury. "By a neck" is not encyclopedic. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It was in the first source of that paragraph, but it was a quick fix to duplicate the source at the point at issue, so I just did it, no sense bugging the editor on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Neck" is certainly encyclopedic, it's just a little technical. I have linked it to the appropriate page. Tigerboy1966 08:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And "neck" is proper sports terminology, it is technical language in horse racing, just like saying an American Football player ran 30 yards for a "touchdown." ("yards" and "touchdown" being proper sports terminology for American football). Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is long enough, new enough, no copyvios, the hook is fully referenced, and all other concerns have been addressed. This DYK is ready to go. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked for an independent opinion on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote that begins with "I'm really, really pleased." is not referenced. SL93 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

For Montanabw since he doesn't appear to notice the relevant rule on the DYK main page - :From WP:DYK - "Within policy – Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright. Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text.". SL93 (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am independent, I've never seen this article before. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm still reviewing it. SL93 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You said above "someone else can review this." If that's not true, then strike your comment above, please. Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will continue the review, but in parts." I went ahead and crossed it out though. SL93 (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything is verified including the quote. SL93 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)