Talk:Charmayne James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

DYK

Montanabw White Arabian Filly Atsme Just a heads up, if you have a suggestions on the hook before I fill out the nomination form. This is just my second time.

I'm going to nominate this article for a DYK. This is going to be my second nomination so I can nominate it myself. I have one hook in mind that I am sure is the best hook. It pertains to the barrel racing run where Scamper's bridle fell off and hung from his neck (and then the bit and Charmayne still managed to win the round.

.. that ProRodeo Hall of Fame barrel racer Charmayne James still managed to win the round when her horse Scamper's bridle fell off?

dawnleelynn(talk) 21:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Charmayne James/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]


Howdy y'all, I will be doing this. Pinging co-nominator

mad 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

General comments

Resolved
  • Lead
  • For an article that has a 8.5k prose size, the lede is too long and gives much weight on the subject's awards. See
    WP:LEADLENGTH
    , should be rewritten into two paragraphs without losing important points.
  • Unless the statements here have been the subject of dispute before, I don't think it's necessary to support them with citations since they're sourced elsewhere in the article. See
    WP:LEADCITE
  • Early history
  • born June 23, 1970 → born on
  • 4-year-old → four-year-old
  • ProRodeo career
  • 1984 was the first year James and Scamper competed at the professional level. → "It was in 1984 that James and Scamper began competing at the professional level."
  • US$53,499 → $53,499. On the rest of the prose there's no need to precede the dollar symbol with US as it's perfectly understood that the prize money are American dollar.
  • Clayton
  • At age 2 → At age two
  • Career earnings
  • This section looks like an
    indiscriminate
    list to me, unless you could explain how this is relevant.
  • References
  • These citations need a minor tweak. I would drop the |website= parameters and just type in the name of the publication/website from where they were retrieved in the |work= param. (e.g. TheHorse.com. → The Horse; erhof.com. → Ellensburg Rodeo Hall of Fame Association).
  • FN 15 needs another reliable,
    third-party
    source since it's not totally clear that it's online with proper evidence of copyright
  • I saw in James' Facebook bio—presumably written by her—that she's married with children; this can be added in a dedicated "Personal life" section. Her autobiographical book Charmayne James on Barrel Racing may be cited since the "About the author" page supports this.

Should be easy fixes as I verify the article against the sources.

mad 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Slightlymad, thanks for reviewing! I'm co-nom because I have several GAs and this is Dawnleelynn's first time. We are working to fix the issues you highlighted and will check back for further comments. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on review: As another writer on this article (and having worked on over 50 prior GA-class articles), I respectfully disagree with a couple of comments, though the reviewer of course does have the discretion to make suggestions and I hope we can reach a compromise. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC) To wit:[reply]
  1. The lead is not too long for a GA, though it could be tightened and where content is sourced in the article body, there is not a need for footnotes. For an FA, it would have to be this long at a minimum.
  2. |website= is what the citation templates use. The "work" parameter is not used much any more. In practice, they look the same on the page.
  3. Career earnings is relevant because this is why she's famous, she became a leading rodeo money-winner across all events, and over competitors in the better-known rough stock events who usually get more publicity. She put barrel racing on the map. How would you suggest we further demonstrate this?
  4. There is no need for a "dedicated personal life" section, particularly one that would be one sentence long. Usually, I put this sort of stuff into a family history or background section, which already exists. Also, I think her personal life is more complicated than her bio indicates (I think there was an earlier first marriage) and we really don't need to go there. If needed, we can verify the marriage and children here and here.

I'll take a look at the video link. If I can find an original source, I'll note it accordingly. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping in
mad 07:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, Slightlymad, kudos for accepting this GA candidate. I was one of the co-authors, and am also a GA/FA reviewer. Montanabw already covered the points I was going to address and she did an excellent job of it so unless there are further concerns that you need addressed, I will remain a quiet (talk page stalker). Happy reviewing! Atsme📞📧 14:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Slightlymad Forgive my delay in welcoming you. I am the original creator of the article, but it is a far cry from that now, LOL! As you have already seen, three other editors who have all been mentors to me have had a hand in authoring this article to its current stance. I still can't say enough about their assistance and skills. Thank you for taking on this article; I will do everything in my power to work with you to get this article to where it needs to go. I have done considerable work on the citations. I have put the publishers into the website parameter which as, montanabw says, makes them look the same as if they were in the work parameter. Plus, there were publishers and websites in both parameters and they were not consistent, so I made them consistent. I also worked on the titles to get them to look more professional. I worked on the leadin before I saw montanabw's reply. Perhaps you saw? I moved some of it down to a new section called Career summary. And now there are no citations in the leadin. I might tweak the leadin a bit more and others are welcome to do so as well. I also did some general editing as I came across it. And I added a small explanation in the Earnings section of how the money earned determines the winners. Also please anyone else free to edit although I did paraphrase that from the PRCA website. I think for laypeople, they do not understand and this helps explain. Hope that helps! I will see what else I need to do. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC) forgot to sign originally. p.s. I used the website parameter - the work parameter is not accessible to me in any of the templates I use or am aware of, btw. I use the one on the Source Editor window. Cite -> Templates -> cite web and so forth. Even when you click the button for more parameters, it's not available. What I've done looks the same, so it should be good, I hope. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slightlymad Hello again. I believe we have completed all of the agreed upon changes. I also ran the Checklinks: tool tonight and found two deadlinks which I fixed. A rodeo circuit named Elite Rodeo Athletes has shut its doors in 2017, and I guess they recently took down their website. I pointed the links to the Wayback Machine. All of the links are verified as live now. I also cleaned up some empty parameters that the Visual Editor needlessly adds to citations. They look much cleaner now in the code. I also replaced the dubious video with other citations and rewrote the content that was based on it. Please let me know if there is anything else while you complete your end. Thanks again. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank
mad 04:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yay!! Thank you for your time and diligence, Slightlymad. It is much appreciated. Atsme📞📧 13:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay folks. I was indisposed until now. I should like to first thank Slightlymad for their time and effort in reviewing this article in the good article review process. It is very much appreciated. Thanks for making it pretty much a painless process. I also thank White Arabian Filly, Atsme, and Montanabw for their crucial assistance in editing this article, it was not just some editing here and there; it was substantive editing that started back with the expansion of the article Scamper. I love seeing it all come together into this good article that I only consider myself as having a hand in. Words do not do it justice. The subject, James, being one of the greatest, if not the greatest barrel racer of all time, truly deserves such an exemplary article. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: discussion not relevant to subject: it's regarding adding archive links to live links and the IA Bot.

Preventive Archive URLs

slightlymad montanabw White Arabian Filly Atsme I already believe I have consensus, but I don't want to have this issue enter edit warring.

  • These "preventive" URLs were inserted into the article without discussion or explanation as to what they were by the GA reviewer.
  • After insertion of the URLs by the InternetArchiveBot, the article was shortly converted to a Good Article, thus there was no time for discussion of the change, and the change was effectively prevented any reversion, except manually.
  • These preventive URLs are difficult to distinguish from actual dead links using web archive URLs.
  • The presence of these preventive URLs negatively impact the appearance of the References.
  • In my year here of serious editing, I have never come across this "style" before in any Good or Featured article, well in any article.
  • Using the ArchiveInternetBot and Wayback Machine are not Wikipedia policy or Good Article policy, and therefore cannot be consensus.
  • After I manually reverted the change, it was reverted by the GA reviewer shortly thereafter, even though the review is over. I understand from the reviewer process guidelines that reviewers are not to be making significant edits unless it's needed for a complex issue.
  • I believe I have consensus here just due to the fact that the changes are from an external tool.
  • "Commonsense" is not policy.
  • All of the hall of fame links are not going to be dead links any time soon.
  • I use this check links tools that Atsme showed me to check my articles: http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Checklinks
  • The editor in question reserves the right to use this method on only some of their created articles.

I would appreciate any insights, thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been discussed,
WP:MINNOW for not explaining and discussing. I do think that there is a growing consensus to consider this method, but it is still at the "discuss on case by case basis" level. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Where's the debate, I'd like to read it? I just realized that the claim was made "Prevention of dead urls from ever occurring in articles is bound neither by GA criteria nor WP policies, but just common sense." How does it prevent dead links from ever occurring? The original links are still in the article followed by the webarchive link. The end user is clicking the live link. What happens when the live link goes dead? Does the end user know to click the archive link? As a tech writer in software documentation for 25 years, that's not too likely. Or, does the editor get notified of the dead link and come and switch the URLs to be like other dead links? This is a bit confusing how it prevents dead links. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out something else. I'm a glutton for punishment. I'm one of those rare people who fix dead links a lot. Over the year I've been here I've learned a lot about fixing dead links, the archiving sites, and the InternetArchiveBot. And I have to tell you, the bot gets things wrong many times when archiving. Sometimes, it makes a fix and points the link to a webarchive, but when I verify the link, it's a webpage that didn't get captured well. It's a bad capture by the Wayback Machine. It happens more than you might think. Also, the bot doesn't handle bare refs in [ ] brackets correctly. I have been noting and fixing these for awhile now. It creates links for those as dead links that have been pointed to the Wayback Machine, but and of special note, it does them in the so called preventive link fashion, where the live link (which is broken) is up-front with the webarchive as the "original" link. So they are useless until they are corrected (reversed). And obviously, it may have adverse effects when used on articles with book references, magazine references, bibliographies, notes, and other such features, or how about those who use citations inside the Reference field? Also, do you need to keep running the Bot over and over every time you add new references? dawnleelynn(talk) 00:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a whole lot about the dead link issue, but if somebody else is willing to add the archive link, my thinking is have at it!! I watch articles but there are too many to worry about fixing dead links so if it can be automated - YAY!! I travel, and don't always get a chance to do maintenance when I'm gone. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Atsme📞📧 03:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme (talk · contribs) You are mistaken in thinking that adding "preventive URLs" automates fixing broken links-it does not. All it does is add the links to the Wayback Machine, and then takes those webarchive links and adds them to your article's references. The InternetArchiveBot does not monitor your articles for broken links and it only fixes them when it runs on your article, either by whatever schedule is set by the bot owner or when you go to the bot's interface page and ask it to manually run on your articles. Did you actually look at James' references to see how it looked? An end user would click the live link. If the link was dead, the end user would never think to click the archive link, it's not user friendly at all. Someone would need to reverse the URLs, just like when you fix dead links yourself. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just a short mention that the when the archivelink (along with other text) that is inserted into the reference it is labeled "Archived". So, when I say it's not user friendly, this is what I mean. An end user reading an article is not going to figure out that they should click this link labeled "Archived" when the first link, the live link, is broken. I just add this because I wasn't sure I made it clear what was not user-friendly.
Since Slightlymad has chosen not to make any comments in this discussion, I am noting in this discussion that they voluntarily reverted their edit last night with the following comment in their edit summary, "Sigh..." So, this concludes this matter.

==

slightlymad montanabw White Arabian Filly Atsme
Ok, let me put my money where my mouth is. This example shows why editors should be allowed to choose whether they want to use the InternetArchiveBot "preventable links" on their References. And choose whether they fix their broken links with the Wayback Machine or the archive.js website. Here is an article that Slightlymad created where these "preventable archive links" have been used. Two of the archive links in this article are actually captured better by the archive.js website than by the Wayback Machine. Click the URLs and see for yourself. Note that I tried these on Windows 10 on both Firefox and Chrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Bust#References
For the reference title: Anne Curtis starts shooting action film
If you click the Archived link, you'll get this article in the Wayback Machine and the pictures will be missing.
But if you click this archive.js link you'll get the pictures: http://archive.is/uzEfj
For the reference title: Anne Curtis to star in action film with Brandon Vera
If you click the Archive link, you'll get this article in the Wayback Machine and the pictures will be missing:
But if you click the archive.js link you'll get the pictures: http://archive.is/NlyrN
That's only one reason I believe I am not being unreasonable in wanting control over how I monitor and fix my dead links, at least in the beginning. The bot is not advanced enough yet, and I don't trust it not to make the mistakes I described above as well as not supporting the archive.js website.

Well, we've only been discussing this issue in two-dimensional terms. Let's take my hometown website, Cheyenne Frontier Days, for example. If you try to load the schedule or the consolidated schedule from the Wayback Machine, you are out of luck. Not all webpages are static (two-dimensional). There's some pretty bright developers who do remarkable things with scripting and programming tools. The schedules are built in place as the web page loads so that any changes to the schedule are always current each time (3D). And, the Wayback Machine can't seem to handle the changes when it tries to capture those pages. It also doesn't capture the the motion in the background that is going on in the home page and other informational pages. For example, the bucking bull and rider in the Rodeo page. Again, Windows 10 on Chrome and Firefox. Different levels of crippled video depending on which browser. This obviously would make using the archive urls useless when I start my expansion project on this article. Forgive me for going on about this, but I intend to direct other editors to this information in future if necessary.

http://www.cfdrodeo.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20170729031837/http://www.cfdrodeo.com/schedule/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170729032008/http://www.cfdrodeo.com/consolidated-schedule/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170728201418/http://www.cfdrodeo.com/event/prca-rodeo/

I fix a lot of broken links, even ones that are not mine, like the ones that show up on my Watchlist. I've watchlisted pretty much all the Rodeo categories. What happens often is that a link gets broken because the website the link it is on reorganizes its structure. Then the InternetArchiveBot comes along and replaces the dead link to an archive link. I see this on my Watchlist, and I repair what the bot has done, fixing the link to point to the correct location on the live site, where it really belongs. I did a large project a couple of months or so on this for all of the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame horses. I forget exactly how many horses, maybe 80, you can see by clicking the link. Each horse's induction page was pointing to an archive page when it should have been pointing to a live link for that hall of fame. Again, using preventive archive links cannot solve this issue and will actually make these links harder to discover and correct to live links. The more I think about this "solution," the more issues I discover. I deal with a lot of halls of fame in the rodeo articles. And I have corrected plenty of broken links that only needed a slight change to their url because of a change in the live website. In fact, when I helped montanabw with her article Bazy Tankersley a few days ago, I found two links that just needed slight URL adjustments due to changes in the live link URLs, and then they were fine. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant text

Atsme First of all, let me say wonderful updates to the article. Good stuff! Just one little thing. In the Career summary section that you tossed, there were a few bits we needed. Why you may ask? Because the James article is set up to use a lead with no citations in it that summarizes the article per that is how montanabw taught me. I noticed back when we were working on it together that many of your GA articles used citations in them. No way is better than the other, just different. Some of the information in the lead became citation orphaned when you tossed the Career summary section. Mainly, the citation for her winning the WPRA Barrel Racing Championships. And the years and the citations for winning the NFR Average Championships. Also the part about her retirement is only in the lead now. I know that using the lead as a summary of everything below the way montanabw and I do causes replication of information. However, I am not married to this policy in James' article if you feel it would be better to change it as this point and start citing in the lead and not use it so much as a summary. Whatever you decide. My only goal here is to have everything included and cited. Also, the gold medal from Calgary was removed, if intentional, so be it. There could be other bits I missed. I know you do what is best for the article either way. Thanks! :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 12:45, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

The lead is the summary. We use citations in the lede if we think the material might be challenged. The citations about her winnings are already in the body text, so we don't have to keep repeating them unless challenged. While multiple RS are required to establish
WP:N, an article can be written citing only a few RS for verifiability and support of the material. I think we've done that regarding her earnings and titles, and I doubt it will be challenged but if it is, we can always add more. I think we covered it quite well in the lead without straying from sports into promotional. It's possible it can be tweaked even more over time. That's how it works on WP. Happy editing! Atsme📞📧 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Atsme Thanks for adding a signature to my last post. I learned how to do that myself recently too. Hey, thanks for explaining. I did not know that about adding citations in the lead specifically for content that might be challenged. Good to know! I appreciate everything you explained and it makes sense. I see everything from the Career summary section is covered in the most recent version of the article except two items:
  • The years she won the NFR Averages 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, and 2002.
  • She qualified for the NFR 19 times with 5 different horses.
I think we should include the years she won the NFR Average. And that she qualified for the NFR 19 times. We don't necessarily need to say she used 5 different horses though. Also, regarding the gold medal, I have never come across that award before, so I trust you when you say it's not that notable. I trust for all you said above. I do know that we included the years she won the WPRA championships, and think the years for the average would naturally be included too. Or am I missing them somewhere? Thanks for your interest in the article again; I know you have the best interests in mind. I am just inexperienced at the GA article level; this is still just my first one. White Arabian Filly and I tried to take Eternal Sun to GA, but we encountered some issues. And now she is on the missing Wikipedians list. Sad. Thanks so much for your time on this article. :) dawnleelynn(talk) 22:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See footnote 28. It's all cited and verified. Atsme📞📧 23:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

James' awards were removed from the article when it was made a Good Article. But I'd like to not lose them, so I'm adding them here:

  • 1984 WPRA Rookie of the Year
  • 1984-1989, 1991-94 Rodeo Houston champion
  • 1996 Reno Stakes Champion
  • 1997 Tucson Rodeo Barrel Racing Champion
  • 1992 Calgary Stampede champion
  • 1992-94 Crown Royal season winner
  • 1988 Calgary Olympics, Gold Medal Team
  • James became the first woman to wear back No. 1 into the NFR (without equal money)
  • 1987 Coors Barrel Racing champion
  • 1986 Turquoise Circuit champion
  • 1985-1991 Coors Chute Out champion
  • 1986 Winston Series champion
  • 1985-86 Winston Pro Tour champion
  • 1984-987, 90 Wrangler Series champion
  • 1984-86, 1988-91, 93 Dodge Series champion
  • 1996 Dodge National Circuit Finals
  • 1991 Crown Royal season winner
  • 1991 Wrangler World of Rodeo champion
  • 1989, 91, 95 Sierra Circuit champion
  • 1990 Copenhagen/Skoal Series champion
  • 2002 Finished 1st in World Standings Winner of the USST Winter Finale
  • 2002 Jack Daniels World Standings Year End Season Leader
  • 2002 Leader of USST Wrangler Summer Tour Points Set Arena Record at Ellensburg, WA (previously held by Scamper)
  • 2002 Set Arena Record at Pendleton, OR Fastest time at Cheyenne, WY
  • 2002 Fastest time at Salinas, CA
  • 2000 Reserve World Champion Winter Tour Finals Champion
  • 1997 14 consecutive years Fastest Time Award - 1997 NFR
  • 1997 New Arena Record NFR Qualifier
  • 2001 Finished 3rd World Standings National Finals Rodeo Qualifier
  • 1999 Finished 6th World Standings National Finals Rodeo Qualifier
  • 1998 Finished 5th World Standings National Finals Rodeo Qualifier
  • 1994, 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 NFR Qualifier
  • 1984, 86-87 89-90, 93 NFR champion
  • 1984-1993, 2002, 2004 WPRA World Champion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charmayne_James&oldid=1193695650"