# Talk:1973 Kentucky Derby

...to make the article encyclopedic. As it stands, the article just repeats information readily available at the official Derby and other common sites, and articles on the race's winner. As well, it relies too much on the long quote, which is too substantial a portion of the overall article. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1973 Kentucky Derby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 21:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article, comments below the chart

Comments

Overall, I am really glad to see a Kentucky Derby article going up for GAN, so kudos to you for this effort.  I do think it's not quite there yet, and shall offer some advice to get it up to par.  I will put up the "on hold" tag, but if it takes you more than seven days to fix it, don't fret, I'll stay on board with you for the time needed so long as progress is happening.

I'd suggest an overall copyedit.  I know when you are pushing an article to GA you can get cross-eyed, but here are some things that jumped out at me:
The phrase "the race" appears 35 times in the article, three times in the first paragraph of the lead.  Try to break that up a little.
Gotten it down to single digits I believe; will drop further once I figure out what I need to do with the critics things you brought up. Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Other phrases also are a bit over used, "Wood Memorial Stakes" can be subsequently be shortened to "Wood Memorial" or even "The Wood."  (While we are on the Wood, for comprehensiveness, is it worth mentioning the mouth abcess issue that cost Secretariat a win in that race?  Not a requirement for GAN, just thinking)
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C)  22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "Secretariat's loss at the Wood Memorial Stakes in New York was his first defeat since his professional debut as a two-year old, where he was disqualified after winning the race." is very awkward, it makes it unclear if he was disqualified in his maiden race or in the Wood.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C)  22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you could do a bit more on how the Wood was the critical prep for the Derby, noting things like Angle Light winning up in the Wood's section and Sham beating Secretariat there (Secretariat was third).
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The references need a few things fixed

"Race summary" section could be expanded a bit, for example, in Sham's article, it mentions he knocked out some of his teeth on the starting gate; if you can source that, it's interesting, particularly that he did as well as he did with such an injury.
Honestly don't know how I would expand this too much more, besides the Sham thing if I can find a source; none of the articles I have found have had too much actual race summary. Disc Wheel (T + C)  23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll do a bit of looking, you improved the content here and if I think you need to expand, I'll see what can be sourced.  There are a crapload of books about Secretariat, surely at least one ought to be in Google Books; I'll see what I can find.  Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
DOne. Disc Wheel (T + C)  21:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't have the odds listed as monetary amounts, use ratios or decimal (see, e.g. 2015 Kentucky Derby for a better way to do the chart), the potential payout is irrelevant and it looks odd.  Do add the purse money (or "stake") won by the top finishers.
Why is have the payout a bad thing to have? I feel its relevant considering I do bring up the handle of the event and since betting is a prominent part of horse racing. Adds some context. Disc Wheel (T + C)  03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The payouts are fine, they are at the bottom of the chart, it's the chart odds listed as money instead of just numerals that was weird.   Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Added stake to the results table. Disc Wheel (T + C)  04:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Think I removed what you wanted gone. Disc Wheel (T + C)  11:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

this source  mentions that Angle Light was actually linked with Secretariat in the betting... worth a minor mention(bettors care about stuff like that, bet one, you get them both, a two-for-one betting deal), as in "trained by Lucien Lauren and run as a single betting entry"
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Same source also mentions some of the races won by the various contenders.  I've made a hidden text comment about expanding info about the field, and this source alone would get you there... that Sham won the Santa Anita Derby, Our Native won the Flamingo Stakes, Royal and Regal won the Florida Derby, My Gallant won the Blue Grass Stakes, Impecunious won the Arkansas Derby, and so on.   Give the reader more of a sense of the players and their context.
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, expand on why Secretariat was the favorite, not just that he lost the Wood.  His record shows he entered the Derby off a 9:7-1-1 record, and for example won the Gotham Stakes.(Equibase record) Also, right up front, I'd mention that he was 1972 Horse of the Year (source is this).
Done. Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Some book sources you haven't used yet and may be worth looking at are these:
Chapter 7 of this little book is quite good.  It mentions more on the field, noting that Forego ran (that horse became a big deal later and should be noted in this article) p. 130 notes the bit about how Sham hit his mouth on the gate at the start.  Actually the book has a very detailed play-by-play of the race too, may be useful to expand, even with the finish omitted from the preview.  Also has the bit about how Secretariat ran each quarter faster than the previous one, the fastest Derby in history, and so on.
Bill Nack's book] is good, though the Google version isn't paginated, so it may not be super-useful here, but could give you background if you need it.
OK, round two! I am confident that you will get this article up to snuff!  Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move everything that I've completed and we're done discussing underneath some collapsible banner, I feel this is getting kinda cluttered. Anywho, I've responded and fixed some more things you've outlined. Disc Wheel (T + C)  03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely getting way better. Lead is much improved, phrasing is getting better and so on. At this point, a bit of expansion as noted above and cleanup of any remaining hidden text is where I'd encourage you to focus. For the race commentary, the two books I noted above have rather breathless and overly detailed analysis, but are very, very thorough.  In the paragraphs above (and in some hidden text) I mentioned what I found and noted above the sources where I found the info.  Expand the prep season, work on organizing what the "pundits" said all in one place, and expand the race details a bit (from the books you can note more on who was in the field, the horse that acted up and delayed the start, which horses were paired in the betting, Sham hitting his head, etc..) and I'll be pretty happy. Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess could you elucidate more on which things I need to alter for the paragraph you want about critics/people's opinions of the horses. other than that I just need to bring to light the part about being trained by the same guy for the horses in the paragraph above. Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw:Also should the forego stuff be discussed in the analysis? Disc Wheel (T + C)  00:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll look over your edits in detail,  but I would mention Forego, something like, "Forego, who later won multiple Eclipse Awards as an older horse, placed fourth."  or something --  and if needed, you can cite that to p. 41 of this source.  Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Disc Wheel:: I'd say you are 90% there, your last round of changes made a big difference.  To simplify matters, I took a small wikignoming whack at the article myself (if you disagree with my changes, feel free to alter them or discuss) and added hidden text of suggested additional edits where I think they might be good -- I am not wedded to my phrasing, but I hope the concepts make sense.  The only other thing I wonder is if, given that the proquest sites won't open for anyone who is not a subscriber, perhaps you can truncate the URLs, perhaps ending each after the "pdf?" section (I suspect that ProQuest subscribers can find each with just that first bit of the URL.)  Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll try and find a way for the proquest stuff, but the only change I don't understand is why the part about the wood memorial comes after the derby entrants paragraph, I feel like that should go before. Disc Wheel (T + C)  11:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Got the sources for proquest, I believe. Disc Wheel (T + C)  02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I think I've adressed all issues. Disc Wheel (T + C)  11:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The sequence probably doesn't matter, the original problem was that the views of the pundits were split up into two places. Whatever works and makes it flow is cool with me (sometimes it takes a couple of whacks before everything falls into place.  I'll take a more thorough look in a couple hours and get back to you.  Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Final cleanup looks great! I am passing it now, contrats!    Nice work!  Montanabw(talk) 07:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to take a whack at that middle section about the pre-race period.  Revert anything I mess up!  Montanabw(talk) 07:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)