|
Atsme, your wikignoming has been helpful, but let's discuss any major changes. Basically, before doing anything to the lead, I want to be sure that the body of the article is good to go. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the most salient points of the article. The other stuff has potential, but be aware that I utterly and completely loathe parenthetical statements in articles (I use them constantly in conversations where I digress, but consider them informal style to be discouraged in formal writing) and avoid them as much as possible. The only other thing is to stick VERY close to the sources (without too-close paraphrasing); we cannot add facts beyond what the sources say, if we need to add new material, we have to find new sources, or not separate sources from the material they cite. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, that's what I thought from the get-go and why I started a draft in my sandbox <--- a process you actually brought to my attention a while back. As for tweaks to the article itself, I've made a few small edits and an image adjustment, then posted on your TP that I started a draft in my sandbox and asked you to review it before I made any changes. I thought you saw that post. When I actually got "into" reading the article, I saw areas that needed tweaking, starting with the lead which by the way is actually too long for the length of the article. As I explained on your TP, I haven't gone over each section in the body, only the one section that needed to be in sync with the changes I made to the lead. I guess we all work differently, and for me, starting at the beginning is how I work best. It's a habit I developed and honed over a 30+ year career and it has served me well; not a bad pattern to use here either, especially considering the lead is the first thing people read, it's what shows up in the info box during a Google search, and in many instances, the only thing that's read. If changes are made in the body, then of course, the lead needs to be adjusted to accommodate the additions. As for citations, the draft wasn't intended to be citation perfect - most of the statements in the article are already cited and I wasn't aware that I had added facts that weren't cited. General knowledge statements not likely to be challenged don't need inline citations, rather they can be general referenced with a note {{efn-ua | notation goes here}}. I was simply tweaking prose. I first wanted to get your input on what I was proposing. Again, my focus was on polishing and making the prose more fluid, engaging and encyclopedic. Oh, and I also completely loathe parenthetical statements but all I did was reuse the parentheticals already in the article for age at the time statements. I also noticed quite a few instances of anthropomorphizing in the article which makes me cringe. I cleaned up a few instances but there are more. For example: The mascot is routinely asked to appear in parades and He has been asked to travel in airplanes. When reviewing GAs and FAs, I'll make quick and easy corrections to punctuation, etc. (unless they are numerous) and will also tweak on a few occasions instead of sticking a template on it. If the syntax lacks clarity, I'll ask for feedback/clarification from the nominator. One other quick mention, there were a couple of instances of dating the article, for example the use of "most recent" which is relative to a specific time that becomes not so recent over time. It's always better to use actual dates and avoid such terms. Atsme📞📧 07:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to keep fixing the small stuff, the time-linked stuff (I agree, just looking at "recent" changes since 2014 are surprising!) and the flagging bigger problems. I also swiped some of your sandbox ideas and put them in here! Feel free to point out or clarify the anthromorphizing; someone else pointed that out too. One thing I have noticed is that the Broncos use "Thunder" in the generic and don't make a big deal out of it being three different horses, I don't quite know how best to handle that (for example, it's not always clear which Thunder went where; the banquet dining table stroll, for example -- I can usually tell the three horses apart in photos, but not always). That said, the lead is not too long for an FAC; 3-4 paragraphs is standard ( I used to get jumped on to make mine longer), but we can always go through and tighten prose. Usually the lead tracks in the same order as the article, but I made a choice to describe the horses up front and the people toward the end, partly because my guess is that kids and people who don't know horses will be frequent readers and need to know stuff like the horse isn't really "white" (though I read somewhere that some contingent thinks they bleach him!) Montanabw(talk) 11:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okie dokie. Re: the reviews, I wasn't sure if you were wanting my contributions as a reviewer, and if so, I won't be making any further edits. If you'd prefer collaboration in CE and tweaking, I have some extra time to help but can't do both because of FAC guidelines. What reviewers will or will not accept depends on the respective reviewers. I agree that statements not likely to be challenged shouldn't include citations in the lead; however, there are times when citations are preferred, especially if it's a BLP. See WP:LEADCITE. I can list quite a few FAs that contain citations in the lead and not all are "obviously" controversial. I'd much rather include a citation and have the reviewer(s) suggest removal than delay the review for not having them. I think what you did in describing the horses was very informative and important information to include in the article. I also believe your use of "performance" is absolutely correct because of the simple fact that anytime a horse appears with a trainer/rider controlling its actions, it is a performance not a natural behavior. I was also a bit concerned over the lead being a little too boggy instead of fluid, and the same for some of the segments in the body which could use some copyediting to make it more fluid and engaging rather than on-point statistical as we'd expect from a list. Just my $1.00's worth (taking inflation into account).
 Atsme📞📧 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning more toward the "collaboration and tweaking" side; it's easy for me to find FAC reviewers, it's constructive critiques before I go there that are difficult (I never send stuff to PR any more, it just languishes there). I know myself only too well -- after working on all the FACs I've been on, I know that at this point in the process, I am almost "blind" on the article because I've looked at it so much that I can't even see the typos in front of me unless someone else says "Yo! Over here!" OTOH, I'm also used to some of the "usual drahmahz" of FAC and thus some things I just simply avoid fighting about (like citations in the lead or cite fomatting).
- So, that said, I think the best approach is to pinpoint the "boggy places" and sort of fix things within individual sections, but not make huge changes until we have agreement. Then do the lead last. Does that sound OK? If I get too upset about something -- except it's what I actually wrote, you are free to trout slap me. But I am really dedicated to encyclopedic tone, no flowery language or breathless sportswriter prose, killing off unneeded adjectives, and avoiding passive voice as much as possible. I also know that I do not alway live up to my own standards. The reviewers will nitpick the heck out of the citation formatting, so that needs to be perfect. (I do prefer cite web to cite news most of the time, unless it's an actual newspaper on google, but so long as we are consistent, that's all that really matters) You in? Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in!!
 Atsme📞📧 23:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bold edits; I tried to keep most of your rephrasing (it was good!) but I had to revert some of the bigger changes for various reasons. A few things "extrapolated" a little too far from the sources or some of the cites got got separated, one was duplicated with different names (I tend to use author's last name). I also suspect we'll get smacked -- hard -- if we have too much "sparkly" phrasing. I do like sparkling prose, but I've been criticized on these horse articles in the past for getting too sparkly! ;) I tossed some info that was already mentioned elsewhere in the article. (like the gal who was the first rider; apparently, according to Judge-Wegener, she actually couldn't handle the horse very well... I don't think that detail needs to be in the article, but I hesitate to put her too front and center in the history for that reason, better to bury it farther down, IMHO). Open to discussion of moving stuff around, and tossed material doesn't mean they are gone for good, but maybe let's discuss what's not good about the existing version and look at a better way to fix it??? I figured if you tweaked a section, it has some kind of problem -- I'd like to keep playing with how to make it better! Montanabw(talk) 08:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Ok, so let's go over why I made the "bigger changes". During my preliminary review, I checked for possible copyvio and discovered several instances in the article where the prose is written verbatim to the prose in the book, Denver Broncos 360° by Nick Brannen - pg. 378, Chapter 9.13.1 History. Correct me if I'm wrong, I stand corrected, the book mirrored text from this article. My apologies to Montanabw for ever doubting her in the first place.Atsme📞📧 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
but it doesn't appear that the book is a mirror of this article because it had already gone to press before this article was created, and Wikipedia is not mentioned in 9.13.6 References. I rewrote the prose to avoid copyvio issues but you reverted my changes stating "various reasons" and that you wanted to discuss changes on the TP first which I'm happy to do if it helps makes you feel more at ease. However, I wouldn't dally long because much of the prose, section titles and overall layout of this article mirrors the prose, section titles and overall layout of the book chapter which is why I started rewriting the sections History and Mascot duties without wasting time discussing my reasons for doing so. Granted, titles are not copyrightable unless they're part of a unique layout and/or patterned presentation as in this case, not to mention verbatim prose which requires serious consideration. It's actually an easy fix.[reply]
- Next: sources. I have not yet focused on the sources, except for the 1 or 2 that I added to support my edits so I'll plead guilty as charged for my unfinished work. I usually wait until the ce is complete before going back over the reference list to combine, fix, and ensure uniformity of citations across the board. Nikkimaria tutored me on citations during a rather stringent FAC review a few years back, and while I may procrastinate from time to time, I am familiar with the process; a tedious one at that. I probably should have used the {{in use}} template on the article so you'd know I was still working on it. I typically edit 2 sections at a time, sleep on it, then come back and preview what I wrote, tweak as needed, and start work on 2 more sections. Curious - from your perspective, what comprises a few things "extrapolated" a little too far from the sources? I think a bigger concern is mirroring what the sources say. The prose I added and whatever tweaks I made were verifiable in the cited sources. Oh, and I see that you found my sandbox proposal and already incorporated parts of it into the lead. I just hope you'll rethink your use of the term "deliberately posing" as it's redundant. Posing (v) is a deliberate action and it's also uncomfortably close to anthropomorphizing when used in that context so if it's not a citable quote, it's best to remove "deliberately". When I initially wrote "most notable for his friendliness to people and poses for the camera", I was using "poses" as a benign noun, not a verb. Using it as a verb in Wiki voice will certainly get us smacked.
 Self-trout Also, regarding one of the sentences you modified, "He routinely appears in parades, is brought to make hospital and school visits, and is seen at other public functions that have required the horse to cope with air travel, elevator rides, indoor appearances for press conferences, and on at least one occasion, walking amongst banquet tables in a hotel ballroom." - the syntactic structure fails to maintain verb tense consistency, and we again see anthropomorphizing in the context of the horse having to "cope". Also, "brought to make" is the visit, "is seen" by whom and why is it important, and "walking amongst" is inconsistent verb tense; "amongst" is as archaic as whilst. Not biggies, but chances are good that the things I mentioned will be brought up during the review so it's a matter of fixing it now or later. It's an interesting article with great potential to be a FA.
- I verified some of the sources, checked for accuracy in the two sections I worked on, eliminated time references and tried to get everything in chronological order while maintaining verb tense consistency, much of which the article still needs work on. I also tweaked a bit on the syntactic structure so the prose will be fluidly engaging and void of any copyvio. Reading out loud helps in determining whether or not the prose flows. With regards to the history and how Thunder came to be, it makes perfect sense to begin that section at the beginning with citable, accurate information about the initial phone call that led to Thunder's first appearance as the team mascot. It should include who trained him as well as who rode him in that first appearance which I cited to an academic source. It belongs in the history section regardless of the criticisms made by one trainer against another. If the criticism must be included, it shouldn't be an issue as long as it complies with BLP policy. Also, the prose as written tends to jump back and forth from Thunder names to registered names which creates confusion. The registered names are already provided in the History section wherein all three horses are properly identified. Continued use of the registered names should be avoided unless you're planning to expand the article to include pedigrees and more details about the breeding program, and/or prior uses of Thunder, Sr. and Thunder II. Atsme📞📧 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am absolutely certain that Denver Broncos 360° is a copy of Wikipedia: Lulu (blacklisted url) www. lulu. com/shop/nick-brannen/denver-broncos-360/paperback/product-22060956.html is a self-pub imprint and the blurb itself states it's a "curated collection of articles and information all about the Denver Broncos Football team!" It was published February 25, 2015 and I was the one who started this article in January 2014!!!! So no way in hell is this article a copy from that book, more the other way around! (grrrrr....). Actually, the reality of the GDFL license is that someone else is trying to make money off of work I and other wikipedians have done and it is really aggravating. To be accused of a copyright violation and plagiarism is just ... painful... infuriating ... but I'm not taking it personally --- it's also inevitable in the world we have today. (grumbling and cursing the "curator") I got caught citing one of these "books" on a different article, not realizing it was a copy from wikipedia! So any changes you made because you thought it was a copy. Don't!! Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for all the awkward phrasings and verb tenses, I was trying so hard to not revert and rewrite but rather to compare old and new that stuff undoubtably got screwed up, and I have no problems if you reword the weird stuff, go for it. Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what to do with the "posing" thing. I agree that my version isn't great, but "poses for the camera" sounds weird to me, too. What he'd do is put up his ears every time he saw a camera... got any ideas? Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a conscious decision not to hold rigidly to a chronological style in favor of a topical style; a brief history of how the mascot came to be, then the description of what he does, including the super bowl, and then "biographies" of the people and each horse. I suppose all the stuff about the first trainer and rider and how Ann Judge came to take over the job could all be moved up to the history section, but then it needs to be deleted from the people section, and frankly, I made the decision I did because there's a lot to say about the people that isn't particularly relevant to the Broncos and that's why I moved it into its own section. I actually feel pretty strongly about the overall structure of the article; there may be places stuff can be moved around, but I don't see it needing a whole rewrite. Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the three horses, If you've gotten to the horse bios, you can see that I did discuss pedigrees for each of them and the bit about how Magness once owned 900 Arabians. Where confusion between the three horses occurs, I'm cool with cleaning that up. The lead needs to mention each horse' stage name and real name (stable nicknames Dos and Tres for II and III are cute, but I only mention them in passing, maybe we could use them more? Don't know) Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But please remember that I have 20 FACs under my belt [1] and I KNOW the Nikkimaria gauntlet... been there many, many times. Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and last but not least, I really don't have issues with minor phrasing of animals as sentient beings with emotions and thoughts; of course they are not humans, but not inanimate things either. I'm always open to a different verb, but an animal is not simply a set of operant conditioned responses; one thing I think is so cool about this whole thing is the trust the horses have developed in the trainer. Montanabw(talk) 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Montanabw that whole mirror thing just blows me away!!! As soon as I read your response, I looked up Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations and also Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License#2._VERBATIM_COPYING. That book is being offered at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and a few other places. *sigh* I made the necessary corrections above with my sincerest apology for ever doubting you. Now that we've got that behind us, back to work (much relieved)....
- I will continue tweaking the verb tenses.
- I will fix the "posing" thing.
- While WP gives us PAGs and MOS, prose is still the work of individual writers. If you prefer to not hold rigidly to ordering the prose chronologically, then I'm ok with leaving it that way.
- I wondered about the Dos, Tres factor and how the Spanish numbering of the names appears to be a new direction. Perhaps just adding a couple of sentences to introduce the new naming protocol will be sufficient? Hopefully, it is not a "recentism" trap that's here today and gone tomorrow.
- It only takes 1 FA under your belt to know Nikki's gauntlet - it's something not easily forgotten
 and I say that adoringly about my WP:TWL tutor.
- I doubt anything written in WP about animals "coping" or dealing with stress, etc. will create enough angst to stir activists into action. Ha! Atsme📞📧 16:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dos" and "Tres" are Ann Judge's nicknames, as far as I can tell. The press uses "Sr., II, and III." And of course, to complicate matters, the Broncos organization pretends "Thunder" is a character like "Miles", who has a single identity and whoever is in the white horse suit is irrelevant... :-P Let's just keep working on clarity and readability! Montanabw(talk) 06:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Montanabw - I made some needed adjustments (in a separate edit in the event you oppose it so strongly you can't resist the urge to revert) but please let me explain first. I reordered random sentences that broke the consistency of the syntactic structure, not to mention being out of context in relation to the main flow of each paragraph. For example, the first para in the lead mentions Thunder's 4 Super Bowl appearances without saying which ones until much later in the lead where it simply doesn't fit. Another example - the final paragraph ended with personality descriptions. The 2nd paragraph was far more relative to personalities and training, etc. so I moved it there. It flows so much better. Now then, before I move down the page to finish ce the remaining paragraphs, I want you to carefully consider incorporating the 3rd paragraph of the lead into the body. It really doesn't add anything to the lead and actually defines in more detail what was already mentioned in the first two paragraphs. Anxious to see what you think. Atsme📞📧 19:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doing a careful go-through. There were areas where I was not happy with the way I had worded things but I couldn't figure out a better solution. I'm looking at the overall diffs and I'll not revert, but comment about what I think. Overall, I'm happy with your edits, they helped. A few basic thoughts:
- I really want to limit unneeded adjectives because they sound "unencyclopedic." I've had the crap beaten out of me about this with the horse articles ovr ten years and though it's plain, I just am tired of the non-horse reviewers snarking at me for overdoing the pink ponies and unicorns. There are a few battles I will not fight any more.
- I am absolutely rigid about making sure material is meticulously sourced. After dealing with the nightmare of bad writing (and copypaste plagiaism) of the ItsLassieTime CCI, then the nightmare that was the FAC for Irataba,I don't ever want anyone to feel they cannot verify what I write.
- I try to make up for dumping adjectives by also dumping passive voice. I prefer "was" to "has been" and so on. I can't always get there, and occasionally it's not the best approach, but just FYI.
- I liked your changes to the lead other than a bit of PV (which you can reinsert if you think I did too harsh a search and destroy) The third paragraph of the lead IS in the body, it's the summary of the background section. WP:LEAD is clear that they want the lead to summarize the article. We parallel it pretty closely. Also, we will not likely pass FAC without a three-paragraph lead, it's one of those things.
- I put citations as close to the material they confirm as possible. I try to avoid doing multiple cites at the end of a sentence unless: a) the sentence is pretty short but I needed multiple cites to verify it -- which we did a few places (i.e. Joe Schmo was born in 1913 in Anytown, USA might need two cites at the end if no one source contains both date and place of birth and it looks dumb to cite each word) or b) I need one source to back up another (such as a foreign language source supported by a shorter and less comprehensive English language source). OTOH, no need to dogpile three sources all saying the same thing. (Also. I've ripped people a new one for "extrapolating" sources, for WP:SYNTH and so I do my very, very best to hold myself to a standard even higher than I'd ask of others. ;-) )
- We have to be careful about lingo, non-horse people don't necesarily understand "head" of horses... some terms I insist upon (stallion, mare, gelding, sire, dam, etc...) but some battles are just not worth fighting. (and given the potential double meaning, "head" is one of them! LOL!)
- GREAT find on Ernie! Yay for you! (Wow, that sounds like quite a wedding, too!)
- We are going to have to decide which date format to use and make every. single. citaiton. that same (Nikki's rulz). Either XXXX-MM-DD or Month day, year. (Probably the latter)
All for now. More to come. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As it got later into the morning, I was seeing double. Collaboration is a wonderful thing. I have not gone over the refs but did fix a couple of the dead links. I don't have the patience for it but I do realize it's important so I'll leave it in your very capable hands. Also, please go play at the following link and if you get time, take their little test before you change all the have beens. I won't swear that after midnight, I got them all perfect. 😆 [2] Atsme📞📧 02:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: a "gallop" down the field diffuses the victory run and what I perceive to be the whole purpose of the mascot who is there to engage the crowd; therefore, engaging prose such as "victory gallop" is neither superfluous nor embellishment rather it's descriptive of what the mascot does; i.e., performs a victory gallop for cheering fans. To simply say that he gallops down the field may leave readers with visions of a leisurely cantor while Judge waves to the crowd like a princess on a Thanksgiving Day parade float, unless that is actually what happens, but I won't press the issue. You're the lead editor on this article. Atsme📞📧 02:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Onward through the fog. I clarified some of my remarks above. Actually, I'm keeping 99% of your copyedits, I'm mostly cleaning up citations. I kept one of the "victory gallops" but Victory Gallop was a racehorse, LOL. I guess it stuck me odd because it's not a victory until the end of the game. To me "gallop" alone is a very active word. But not a moral issue. As for the passive voice question, I got passive voice beaten out of me with a stick at law school, LOL! And my law degree trumps that girl's web page! Hee Hee!Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PSS: I typically use Provelt to cite sources because it helps maintain consistency in the way citations are formatted. Not saying I don't get lazy from time to time and manually cite. This was a fun article to collaborate on with you!! I learned a lot about the Broncos mascot. Interesting stuff, Montanabw. You done good. 😄 Atsme📞📧 03:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it formatted author names first, last instead of last, first. I use the citation templates, they put it all in the correct order. But it formats in UK dates, so needs manual entry, the GA version of the article was mostly YYYY-MM-DD, so we are going to have to go in and do manual fixes... bleech! Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you explicitly with that chore!! Atsme📞📧 03:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! You mean no sane person wants that job! Wll, here's the diff of my final round. Think we are ready to shoot it up to FAC? Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're ready, I'm ready. The worst that can happen after the review begins would be requests for a bit more tweaking. *lol* Good luck!! Atsme📞📧 04:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
