# Talk:1993 Grand National

It's come on pretty well this article. I don't really know what the criteria for a GA-standard horse-racing article would be, but I wonder whether it's worth a go at nominating it? Bob talk 21:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It has indeed been vastly improved but I'm not sure it will be successful as a GA, the standards for a GA are extremely high, but may be worth nominating anyway, as at the very least we will have some feedback as to how it could be improved. --TBM10 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that it might be a good candidate because as a result of the unfortunate end and subsequent enquiry, it has a lot more extra-race interest than most of the other GN races. As a result, there are quite a lot of references and subsequent interviews about the event than it would have had if it has all gone to plan. In GA candidacies, it is almost always the referencing and breadth that let them down, but because this article is a lot narrower in scope than the main Grand National article, but has quite extensive extra-race coverage, I think it may stand a chance (not that I know much about racing, really!). Bob talk 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see the article has been passed as a GA. When I compare the current article to how it was before I first started editing it, it is clearly vastly improved. Well done to everyone who has also contributed! --TBM10 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1993 Grand National/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Well written, complies sufficiently with MoS. I made a few minor copy-edits.[1]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well referenced, RS and no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Sufficient detail and well focussed
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Image captioned and licensed
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This article meets the criteria so I am happy to pass it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article to read but I have an addition to suggest for under Aftermath if the relevant news story can be found to cite. I recall this race as one of the off-course betters (office syndicate) who got their stake money refunded. I also recall it being in news that one of the starters was exposed by the tv coverage as an alleged 'dole fiddler' and put in trouble with the local DSS because he had not declared he was working that day. (The man may probably be dead now given the age I thought he was then.)Cloptonson (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC){Belated signature)