Talk:Go Man Go

Go Man Go is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
August 1, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
September 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horse racing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Overall, this is a very impressive article! I have a few suggestions, but nothing too drastic. Also, please keep in mind that I've never reviewed a horse article before, nor do I know the first thing about horse racing or breeding. That said, maybe an outsider's perspective is a good thing. Besides, Wikipedia is meant to be for the layman, not the expert. So, without further ado:

Overall, the article is a little horse-lingo heavy. That's not a bad thing, but it leaves any non-expert on the subject confused. The best (and easiest) way to resolve this would be to wikilink any technical terms, so that if someone doesn't know what it is to be "foaled", they can click the link and figure it out themselves. Other examples include "sired", "dam", "sire", "stud fee", "broodmare sire (maternal grandsire)".
There's a few cases of unencylopedic prose here and there that shouldbe ironed out. For example: "In those days", "that ever managed that feat", "but eventually this was straightened out", etc.
"AAAT" is unexplained.
"Unfortunately, Ferguson later lost the full brother, and mother and father of Go Man Go." is a little confusing. Did he misplace the horses? Did they run away? Also, the wording is a little awkward, so I'm not sure if the brother, mother, and father were all lost in the same way, or at different times, or what.
What do the asterisks in the Pedigree section mean? No legend is provided.

And that's it! I've put the article's nomination on hold, which gives you seven days. After those 7 days are up, I have to either pass or fail the article. Feel free to drop me a line when you feel you've addressed my concerns. Drewcifer (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the road, but should be able to get to these while on the road, and if not, I'll be home Monday night, so they'll be done by Tuesday at the latest. And it's great to have a non-horse person review, otherwise we miss the things that are jargon heavy! thanks muchly for the very helpful suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I took care of things. Let me know if there are other concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice! Excellent work. GA passed! Drewcifer (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like this article - it is very well done. I did some copyediting and reorganizing to fit "my" version of what it should look like; feel free to revert any or all of the changes. A few points:

I thought the definition of "TB" in the lead was misplaced. If the info is necessary to the article, I'd recommend either a footnote or just leave it to the body of the article.
- Heh. It was added in response to some PR comments that it be there in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered using the new ref group= syntax? Since you do have a few notes that are explanatory, I think that would help to highlight those to the readers.
- No clue how to use it. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really notable that he faced Vandy's Flash 12 times? Is it unusual to face one opponent that many times, or was Vandy's Flash himself notable? I think a bit more detail to provide context on why this is included would be helpful.
- Yep, it's notable. Vandy's Flash isn't in the Hall of Fame, but he was one of the first big name QH racing geldings, and a world champion himself. Clarified this a bit in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
", however, sure that he owned Go Man Go's full brother and father and mother still, " multiple questions
- I didn't think Ferguson owned Top Deck? Perhaps we can make that more clear earlier in the article
  - Clarified this. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the way this sentence reads but couldn't come up with a better version
  - Me either, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How were the other horses "killed"? that wording suggests something very bad happened and I am curious what.
  - Changed it to "died". The only one we know why/how died is Top Deck. Causes of death of a lot of horses just aren't known, and the siblings and mother fall into that category. Heck, I doubt I'd be able to find their actual years of death without going to the AQHA and digging out their registration files. And that's if the date got reported to the AQHA, which it might not have. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to these, fixed what I could. Take a gander when you get a chance, let me know what you think. I think Cutter Bill is next up. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits until the lead editor of this article can review your suggestions. This is not because you might not have made some useful comments, but rather it is because this article just passed a GA review in its previous form, and your edits made significant changes that may cost it that status or trigger a review. Please discuss these issues with User:Ealdgyth, who did the overwhelming majority of the work on this article. She may agree with you, and if not, the two of you can discuss matters further. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montana, dear. I asked Karan to look over the article pending me putting it up for FAC when I get home. I'm going to go ahead and put back Karan's copyedit's (grins). Thanks for being protective though! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it just seemed like a ton of stuff was tossed, but if you are OK with it, then all is well. Sorry if I overreacted. Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved around and copyedited, to remove my redundancies. I double checked it well when she did it, she's not the type to delete stuff without checking in first. Please keep an eye on the article still though, and feel free to copyedit it again. I just assemble the information, I recognize I'm not a wordsmith! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't recognize Karan from WPEQ. Sorry Karan! Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitlization

American Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred are the names of the breeds. In this case, we are referring to the breed, so we use the proper noun, which is properly capitalized. thoroughbred (with the lower case) has a different meaning than Thoroughbred (with the upper case) as the lower case refers to a purebred of any species, and Thoroughbred refers to a member of the horse breed named Thoroughbred. Same for Quarter Horse. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say but "No, it doesn't?" Where are you getting this? The "rule" you have just described does not conform to standard American usage. We see this in Wikipedia all the time—enthusiasts think that their field of interest is so special that it deserves unwarranted capitalization. So, by your rule, we can have a "general" riding a "Miniature Pony"? This is incorrect and embarrassing. People will think we don't have any respect for English, that we're controlled by cabals, or that we can't tell the difference. You are just plain wrong, but I can't prove a negative—no one can. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred is properly used with a T, not a t. This is from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage. I'm not making this up, honest. Likewise, Quarter Horse is the name of the breed, just like Morgan. If you capitlize Morgan, you capitlize Quarter Horse. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with Ealdgyth here. Please, check Thoroughbred, which is an FA. Milkbreath, in one of your edit summaries you compared it to "zebra", which is a bad comparison. You say "zebra" like you would say "horse" or "cat" or "whale" or "shark"...it's a different species. However, if you were looking at different types within the zebra species, such as Grevy's Zebra or Burchell's Zebra, you would capitalize them, just as you would a member of the German Shepherd dog breed or the Maine Coon cat breed. If you think it's so wrong, why wasn't it caught by the many great copyeditors when this article went through FAC? Thoroughbred (as it's used here) and Quarter Horse are breeds, not species, so they need to be capitalized. Please check any book or website on horses and you will see that we are not "just plain wrong". Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bad example. But it would be "Grevy's zebra" in any normal book. What the editors of fan literature for the various animal lovers do is of no consequence. Standard usage does not capitalize such things. I don't think you're making anything up, I just think that y'all have been looking at idiosyncratically edited material. I'm afraid I don't have access to the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage right now, so I can't comment on that. I would need to see exactly what it said for myself (that's just the way my mind works, no offense). I could drag in all sorts of authorities, but we have a talk page at the MoS for that sort of thing. (Speaking of the MoS, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles about capitalizing "Director".)

OK, let's do it here. (I have trouble with this aspect of Wikipedia, having to convince people of the obvious. It seems to trigger my irony sensor and my sarcasm reflex.) The first proof I would offer is the corpus of English writing in the late twentieth century in which only words that must be capitalized are. Also, I've got the Chicago Manual of Style open in my lap, and there is no entry in the index for "breed", either as a main heading or under "capitalization". This means they are not capitalized. Now I've got the AP Stylebook, and ditto. It does show "Canada goose", though, in trying to prevent "Canadian goose". Notice the lowercase "g". The trend in American English has been away from capitalization. If every field of interest is allowed to have its head and capitalize the things it loves willy-nilly, we'll end up looking like 18th-century German, for crying out loud. Let's draw a line somewhere. Let go, please.

Also, I'm smelling article ownership, here. How come you get to have the final say on a matter you didn't care about until I tried to make it right? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the capitalization used here is well established as the norm on Wiki. Here's an example at Wikipedia:BIRDS#Bird names and article titles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are a special case. They somehow forced this change through. I'm resisting the change for reasons that I'm trying to make clear here. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath, if you want to gain consensus to change this (which is used throughout Wiki's animal articles), you would need to take it up at a MoS page; this article conforms with current Wiki conventions. Just to let you know, the last time someone tried to change this Wiki-wide, it was a long and unpleasant discussion (I can't recall where to find that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked online resources, and both dictionary.com and Miriam Webster say Thoroughbred should be capital when referring to a breed of horses [1] [[2]]. It shows the other as "quarter horse" (uncapitalized)[3] [4]. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was bored on my lunch hour and I have a sad life, I looked this up in Webster's II, 1988. Capitalizing Thoroughbred is correct according to the dictionary. Quarter horse is not capitalized, but I do not know how that would change when using American Quarter Horse. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I blew that one. Boy, is my face red. SandyGeorgia must have lost all respect for me. "Thoroughbred" as distinct from the generic word "thoroughbred". I sit corrected. But I was wrong for the right reason: You don't capitalize "Thoroughbred" because it's the name of a breed. --Milkbreath (talk)

No lost respect here; I've struggled with this myself for a long time. I can't find all the old posts, don't even recall where they are or where to look for them, but it has always been a minefield. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comforting words. And, yes, it does conform to the wishy-washy dictum in the MoS that, freely translated, says "whatever, we're too upset to decide right now". You do have to wonder why people who have spent maybe 10 minutes of their lives all told thinking about capital letters suddenly feel the need to take a firm stance on the matter, not to mention any names or point any fingers. Smells like NPOV to me. I'm outta here. Have fun making Wikipedia even more quirky and inaccessible than it has to be, y'all. And remember, when everything is capitalized, nothing will be. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the article to the last "clean" version before this debate broke out. When there is consensus here, we can tweak it accordingly. However, (at least this week) when referencing the proper name of an animal breed, the name is ALWAYS capitalized. Boxer, German Shepherd, Border Collie, etc... we might have sled dog racing, but a Husky, Malamute or whatever pulls the sled. Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC) "Follow up' I wish we had the complete text here, but this acknowledges that the capitalization conventions for animal names are all over the place. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Milkbreath, there is some wiggle room on capitalization conventions that fall short of turning English into German! LOL! It is clear that there is no consensus on the issue overall. See this discussion My perspective on the matter (as one of the most active editors at WikiProject horse breeds task force) is that if the word is an integral part of the breed name, such as Quarter Horse (no one ever calls them just "quarters") then both words need to be capitalized. However, when the word is used only for clarification that we are talking about a horse and not a human, as in Arabian horse or Morgan horse (normally called "Morgans" and "Arabians") then the non-proper name word is lower case. Thus here, Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse/American Quarter Horse are proper names. Not that dictionaries are always right or wrong, but there is also the convention of calling things what those who know the most about them want them to be called. And here, there is no such thing as a generic "quarter horse," there is a "stock horse type, of which the Quarter Horse is one breed of that type. Hope this explanation, agree or disagree with the reasoning, is at least clear. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Later note: In all this, I acknowledge that there is another argument for minimal capitalization or first word only capitalization, but if you look here, which is the closest thing to the AKC in the USA as far as defining what horse breeds are breeds and what is not, they capitalize each word -- and while none of these folks may be grammarians, there is also the issue of respect, trade names, etc... if we are to follow the conventions of the horse industry, then there is clear precedent for this style. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as MOS goes on the subject, here is what it has to say: "For particular groups of organisms, there are particular rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms; for example, official common names of birds." which I believe is applicable here. All research (scientific and books for laypeople) I have ever seen on horses refers to breeds with capital letters. Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Deck's sire?

"Top Deck was bred by the King Ranch, and although he was unraced himself, his sire Equipoise won the 1942 Kentucky Derby." In the article about Top Deck (and even in the Go Man Go article), the pedigrees shown picture Equipoise as Top Deck's grandsire, and Equestrian his sire. Can someone clarify/explain the reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.144.131 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Let me check real quick. Probably just my brain mistyping. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Turns out Walt Wiggins, who was my source for that bit of information, didn't do his research. Equipoise sired the 1942 KD winner, but it wasn't Equestrian, it was Shut Out. Equestrian never won a stakes race in his life, so I've removed the information as untrue. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burial site

Ealdgyth, can you double check the source on this?

He died in 1983 and was buried near the headquarters of the Bueno Suerte Ranch in Roswell, New Mexico.

Bueno Suerte is incorrect Spanish; I'm almost certain that's the Buena Suerte Ranch, and Google turns up several sources that verify the correct name. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can check, but I am willing to bet that since my Spanish is abyssmal, I copied it exactly. Granted, it's quite likely the source got the spelling wrong, but .... you know the drill. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A google search on "bueno suerte ranch" roswell, new mexico turns up only Wiki, while "buena suerte ranch" roswell, new mexico hits 54, so I think that's it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave your correction in (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three-time champions

Looking over the list of champion Quarter Horses, it looks like there were three that won three times in a row, rather than just two, including Shue Fly in addition to Woven Web and Go Man Go; is there some nuance I'm not picking up, or does this need to be corrected? MisfitToys (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shue Fly's awards are from the days of the American Quarter Racing Association, not the AQHA. The AQRA was absorbed into the AQHA in 1950, and while they sorta recognize the awards, they tend to look on them a bit askance. I think one reason the source I used didn't count Shue Fly is that they aren't "year" awards, but seasons. But I have no problems with amending the lead to say "three" instead of two. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Woven Web's wins were also before 1950, so I don't see that it makes sense to draw the line in between the two mares; the intro could be amended to indicate that he was the third and last horse to win three in a row, and the only stallion. MisfitToys (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely trying to point out why the source I used for the "only two" might have gone that way. I didn't go to the list and count, it came from one of the works used (which one, I don't remember, honestly). Whatever you'd like, but we need to put the "born" back in, because non-horsepeople look at the "foaled" and don't have a clue what it means. Foaled got taken out at the FAC, and they have a point that a short explanation of what foaled means is needed for the non-horsey among us. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we survived...

Ugh. I just checked the cumulative changes, and the ones that stuck look good. Thanks to everyone who guarded this on it's big day! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was so busy today I never got online! Congratulations. Looking at the edit history, I must say I don't know if I EVER want to babysit a main page article! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see why I was boggled when you were asking when Thoroughbred would be on the main page... (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all (especially Ealdgyth) did a great job of responding quickly and calmly to the few genuine questions too...maybe you should be in charge every day ;) Karanacs (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Go Man Go. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Links

Another featured article. Why do I keep forgetting to check first. Well, I only made a couple minimal changes according your instructions, Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), for the citations to be formatted. Two links now pointing to live links instead of archives in the Wayback Machine. I also fixed a broken link in the External Links section. I used Checklinks and there are also four more broken links - AQUA links that I am not able to find, but you might want to fix since it's a featured article. I used the following tool:

http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Go_Man_Go

It's a really interesting article, btw. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Using the Checklinks took, I found four broken links, (well two really, there are two sets of duplicates).

http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Go_Man_Go

I've been able to fix many broken links, but some of these ones that are records on AQUA's website I am not knowledgeable to fix. You may need to use Wayback Machine for some.

Here's the Wayback Machine link for the Racing Stakes link: [5]

Here's the Wayback link for the Champions link. [6]

Let me know if you want to use the archive links and I can add them in if you like. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Go Man Go. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]