The following 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Overall: Checked core criteria per above template. My sole reservation with this nomination is the veracity of the hook. According to the article, Black Allan never raced, so he never failed as a racehorse. He just never competed. Besides, even if true, it's a bland hook. It seems to me that with readers' expectations aroused by 'racehorse', a really catchy hook could be crafted playing off Black Allan's 'running' and 'walking'. This is an interesting article that deserves a fascinating hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
How's this for a new hook:
ALT1...that Black Allan'srunning walk made him ineligible as a racehorse but desirable as a breeding stallion?
A racehorse isn't made just by competing in races. They usually go through at least a year of training before they even see a real track, and to be worth anything at all they have to be bred to race as well. He was, through the Standardbred bloodline, although Morgans used to be raced a lot as well. He just had the genetic glitch that produced the Walking Horse gait, passed it down, and now we have the whole breed. Pinging Montanabw for more ideas. White Arabian FillyNeigh 20:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Black Allan's training would be the story behind the story, but does not appear in the article. However, your ALT1 suggestion is a good one. It could even be condensed a bit as ...that Black Allan'srunning walk made him unfit for racing but desirable as a stud?
I am striking the original hook. However, I am not officially pushing my ALT hook, and a satisfactory ALT1 being supplied, this nomination is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
"Desirable as a stallion/stud" doesn't work; and he wasn't a flat racing horse, they wanted him to do harness racing (trot racing) plus it implies that his inability meant "breed him instead." So, Georgejdorner, and White Arabian Filly I propose... Montanabw(talk) 17:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) :
The above hook, at 213 characters, is overly long and cannot be approved at present length.
However, there is was an approved hook above for this nomination, and is was GTG with that hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
ALT3 is 140 characters of readable text, well under the length requirement (remove the formatting before you assess length). I'm not wedded to mine, but ALT1 and ALT2 are both inaccurate per my concerns above. I am open to White Arabian Filly breaking this impasse with ALT4 if needed. Montanabw(talk) 07:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It is my understanding that a hook must be 200 or fewer characters so that it may fit in the DYK slot on the Main page. (See Supplemental Rule J1). Condensing or editing ALT3 slightly will make it acceptable.
Per Montanabw's objection, ALT1 has been struck. There is no official ALT2 in this nomination.
With no viable hook, this nomination cannot yet be approved.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm drawing a total blank. Maybe we can simply condense the hook to make it fit the length requirements? White Arabian FillyNeigh 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
At this point, you need another reviewer, as I cannot review my own suggested hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Georgejdorner, the rule is characters, excluding all the wikipedia markup that doesn't show. The ALT3 hook is under 200 charactersthat Black Allan's running walk made him unfit for harness racing, but he then became the foundation sire of the Tennessee Walking Horse? is 137. It is NOT over-length. I've got over 50 DYKs and qpqs, I know the rules. BlueMoonset or someone, can you please give us a ruling on whether ALT3 is under 200 characters? That said, ALT2, however, is acceptable if it ends this silly drama (it's only 92 characters). Someone approve this so we can move on, please? Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
ALT3, at 138 characters including spaces—only what appears on the screen counts since the concern is how much space the hook will take on the main page (though the initial ellipsis does not count in the total per WP:DYK)—is very far under the maximum, and is fine. Wikilinks and piping links and bolding and other formatting characters do not matter, since they do not take up space. I have fixed the formatting of the apostrophe-s and the ellipsis in the remaining hooks. The facts are in the article and sourced, though the article's "never raced" is presumed to be in dead-linked FN4, thus the AGF tick. The actual hook phrase "unfit for racing" is supported by FN2's "considered a complete failure as a harness racer" (and the accompanying description of why), if you want to add the source in an appropriate place. I'm not approving ALT2 because the article credits Allan's "influence and potency in passing his gait and conformation to his offspring", not solely the gait, as what made him the foundation sire. (I'm not sure where "conformation" comes from source-wise; interestingly enough, FN2 credits the passed-on temperament and gait.) If ALT3 is used, I suggest changing "but he then" to "yet he"; I think "yet" works better than "but", and also means that "then" is unnecessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In my hundred or so DYK noms, I have always kept my hook length below 200 characters in edit view. Now that I know the rule is 200 characters screen view, I will review my QPQs on that basis. Review template altered per admin decision. And thank you BlueMoonset for wrapping this up.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Checked core criteria per above template. My sole reservation with this nomination is the veracity of the hook. According to the article, Black Allan never raced, so he never failed as a racehorse. He just never competed. Besides, even if true, it's a bland hook. It seems to me that with readers' expectations aroused by 'racehorse', a really catchy hook could be crafted playing off Black Allan's 'running' and 'walking'. This is an interesting article that deserves a fascinating hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
With no viable hook, this nomination cannot yet be approved.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
At this point, you need another reviewer, as I cannot review my own suggested hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
ALT3, at 138 characters including spaces—only what appears on the screen counts since the concern is how much space the hook will take on the main page (though the initial ellipsis does not count in the total per WP:DYK)—is very far under the maximum, and is fine. Wikilinks and piping links and bolding and other formatting characters do not matter, since they do not take up space. I have fixed the formatting of the apostrophe-s and the ellipsis in the remaining hooks. The facts are in the article and sourced, though the article's "never raced" is presumed to be in dead-linked FN4, thus the AGF tick. The actual hook phrase "unfit for racing" is supported by FN2's "considered a complete failure as a harness racer" (and the accompanying description of why), if you want to add the source in an appropriate place. I'm not approving ALT2 because the article credits Allan's "influence and potency in passing his gait and conformation to his offspring", not solely the gait, as what made him the foundation sire. (I'm not sure where "conformation" comes from source-wise; interestingly enough, FN2 credits the passed-on temperament and gait.) If ALT3 is used, I suggest changing "but he then" to "yet he"; I think "yet" works better than "but", and also means that "then" is unnecessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In my hundred or so DYK noms, I have always kept my hook length below 200 characters in edit view. Now that I know the rule is 200 characters screen view, I will review my QPQs on that basis. Review template altered per admin decision. And thank you BlueMoonset for wrapping this up.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)