Template:Did you know nominations/Beholder (horse)

The following discussion 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) 14:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Beholder (horse) edit

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nom, no QPQ required
  • Comment: Nominated by Montanabw

Created by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by Montanabw (talk) at 04:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC).

  • The article is new, long enough to qualify, well-referenced, neutral and does not appear to contain any copyvis. Hook is short enough and formatted correctly. QPQ not required. The cite for the hook fact says first filly to win those races in "consecutive years". I know she is the first filly to do it at all, but it would be better if a cite was found to support that? --Bcp67 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Subtle, but good point. I'll see what I can find. Sit tight! Montanabw(talk) 18:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Answer: I can prove it by a comparison of the two races on the official breeders cup site: fillies and distaff, but does that constitute WP:SYNTH? (I'll see if I can find another source that did this and said it) Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
(I could also just add "in consecutive years" if that doesn't work, I think it will still be under 200 chars?) Montanabw(talk) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC). Follow up have two sources, will one work? [1] and [2]
Yep, either of those works for me - if either or both of those goes into the article I'd be happy to pass this. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Added both, what the heck. If we ever crank it up for GA, then we can move some into the body text. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks all fine to me now but would appreciate a look from another DYK? reviewer if possible, given that this is my first review.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks OK to me also. GTG Jack1956 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)