Talk:Bud Dunn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBud Dunn 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 9, 2016Good article nomineeListed
September 29, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 24, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at 81, horse trainer Bud Dunn became the oldest rider ever to win the Tennessee Walking Horse World Grand Championship?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 19:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


As I have not edited this article ever, I believe I can do a neutral assessment and shall do this review. Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See comments below
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See comments below
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Sources are good, formatting needs improvement, see below
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig runs clean, spotchecks look OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments below
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No images, images not mandatory for GA
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. No images, images not mandatory for GA
7. Overall assessment.
Comments
  1. The article would benefit from a bit of expansion; I was looking at this where it noted that he won his first championship when he was 74 and had been a trainer for 42 years. That is really interesting! It is also interesting that his son won a title before he did.
  1. I don't know if this is worth adding, but [1] h is also in his local community's sports hall of fame. (Maybe a minor point)
  1. Would like to see some more wikilinking (horse trainer, black (horse) links to article about the World Grand Championship) and so on)
  1. However, also be aware of overlinking, i.e. Tennessee Walking Horse -- the general rule is link in the infobox and link the first time used in article text.
  1. Be more consistent in terminology; i.e. Tennessee Walking Horse, Walking horse etc... at least be sure lead and infobox use the same phrasing, even if it is abbreviated a bit in the article text.
  1. For the non-equestrian reader, be clear what "World Champship" we are discussing in the lead.
  1. The lead itself needs to be expanded a bit (see WP:LEAD ) -- this my least favorite part of GA article writing, but basically think "one paragraph text=one summary sentence in lead" for an article of this length. Think in terms of one pretty decently-sized paragraph or (better yet) two reasonably-sized paragraphs. It looks like he is notable for being trainer of the year as an elderly man, so maybe clarify if he got the award as a lifetime achievement thing or if he simply won in spite of being very old -- either way, it's worth mentioning. I'd also mention that he won one championship at age 81 (which is amazing) Given that he and his son are the only father-son pair to win World Championships, that all should be spelled out more explicitly in the lead.
  • Tried to expand more, and put it in the lead. I think he just won in spite of being old, but it's still very impressive. I mean, undoubtedly that's easier than show jumping or rodeo, but still, most people retire waaay before then... It's interesting too that his HoF induction came before either big win. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The citations should be filled in more completely with parameters for date= , publication= , author= (or better yet, last= first= ) and page # if applicable. If you have editing limitations due to your equipment, ask if someone (other than me) can help you.
  1. This is just me, but unless the individual horses have a lot more to say about them, I'd not give them each their own subsection, I'd consolidate them into one, perhaps titled "Significant horses" or something like that.
  • Done. Interesting that they were sire and colt, although he doesn't seem to have owned either of them. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. SIGNIFICANT: You may want to include his full legal name in the lead sentence: "Emerson "Bud" Dunn', this also gives us an accurate date of birth (I LOVE find-a grave for this stuff!): http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Dunn&GSfn=Emerson&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=141463144&df=all&
  • Did it. It's weird not even the newspaper obit gave his real first name, but I didn't think his parents named him Bud. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All for now, more to come. If you have any questions about how to address my concerns, feel free to ask! Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, I have addressed pretty much all your concerns. Can you look and see if there's anything else that's a problem? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to get back to you. Have drama at Colonial Spanish Horse page... will get back to you, though! Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that. I probably won't be back on until tomorrow. I'm going to watch the Super Bowl and try to catch the Budweiser commercial. They say it's supposed to have a Clydesdale foal. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, swung by and a lot is better! A couple more things, they may appear nitpicky, but they'll be good in the long run:
  1. Need the full citation for this book [2] (see {{cite book}} )
  2. Authors should be last name, first name. I'm OK with the "author=" template, personally, but sooner or later, someone will probably swing by and make them "last = |first =" Just FYI.
  3. That county sports hall of fame site said, "His influence on the training of Tennes­see Walking Horses redefined the sport in many ways." Do you have any sources that explain this? What did he do that was innovative? That's important if you can find details; just saying the generic "redefined the sport" is kind of meaningless, so I don't think you need to say that unless you DO find details (I did find a negative site about the Big Lick, but I don't want to go there, and it's a unusable blog anyway).
  4. Of your existing sources, this one has a wee bit more stuff -- that he attended the Celebration for 50 years, was very well-liked, it says he was two-time trainer of the year? this source verifies the other Trainer of the year, looks like 1980?
  • Other than looking for ways to expand content a wee bit more, I really think all that's left is fixing the footnotes. You are almost there! Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 21:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. I found and added the page number, publisher and other stuff, but couldn't find ISBN. It's an older book so it may not even have one.
2. I changed the authors to last name, first name and added publication dates.
3. I can't find any source that says exactly what he did that was particularly innovative. I think he was admired because he had good horses and never won a big stake until he was 74 (added a quote from him about how popular he and the horse were. In the source it says the fans were waving Rebel flags because Rebel was the horse's barn name, but I didn't put that because of all the Confederate flag controversy; I figured somebody would delete it or turn it into an anti-South piece of crap like the Margaret Mitchell article). I put the thing about his first trainer of the year award in there. I think the second time he won it, it was a special thing related to the Celebration and not necessarily to the whole association.
4. Footnotes are hopefully fixed with cite news templates.

White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you've addressed all my concerns. Good to go and CONGRATULATIONS! Green tickY. Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts[edit]

@White Arabian Filly: Can you please explain your recent reverts? As I explained in my edit summaries,

  1. Discussion at Template talk:Infobox person has concluded that just because something is sourceable does not mean it warrants inclusion in the infobox. In particular, cause of death is usually included only if significant, and children are usually only named if notable. In this case, there is evidence of notability only for Steve.
  2. Multiple discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere have concluded that Find a Grave is not a reliable source. See WP:EL/P and related guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, this article is a GA and all sources passed inclusion during the review. Cause of death and children are listed in several thousand other articles. In this case, I think that it warrants saying he died of natural causes because a lot of people are convinced that all horse trainers eventually get killed by their horses. I listed the children because, to my way of thinking, listing them keeps people from wondering about who they were and having to look it up on another website. I guess I think that the article should answer all potential questions a reader may have about a person. I get that Find a grave is not a really good source, but without finding anything else it's the only birthdate source I have. I spent a solid week working on this article to get it to GA status, and part of the problem was that it was fairly short, so it doesn't need anything removed. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the article is a GA does not mean the article is perfect as it is, no matter how much effort you put into it unfortunately.
No one is arguing that we remove the children or cause of death from the article, simply from the infobox - there's no reason to think that would lead people to go to another website. The article still answers the questions - but that doesn't mean that all possible answers belong in the infobox.
Just because a bad source is the only source for a particular detail, doesn't suddenly make it a good source. If you have no reliable source for the birthdate, you shouldn't include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found a book to source the birthdate and cited it, getting rid of the find a grave thing altogether. The book is published by a mainstream company and not self published, so it should meet RS. It's true that GA doesn't mean an article is perfect, but it does mean it has undergone work and review, and doesn't have major issues like copyvio or incomprehensible format. One of the biggest issues with horse articles is that it's hard to find sources, mostly because a lot of coverage is in old magazines and stuff that's not online. However, in this case, at least there are newspapers that have been scanned and are available. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases (though not this one), Findagrave has headstone photo, and in such cases it is quite reliable, and when the information is comprehnsive, it actually is reasonably reliable overall. As for infoboxes, there are no hard and fast rules, only various consensus of editors, which can change at any time. You know that, Nikki, and deprecating infoboxes until there is no content at all is really quite a waste of time and effort. Persondata needs to be completed. Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course consensus can change, but there's no indication it has in this case, regarding either the two infobox parameters at issue or Find a Grave as a source - you're welcome to test that at Template talk:Infobox person or WP:RSN if you suspect otherwise. I'm not sure what you refer to in your last sentence: persondata actually has been deprecated, and even when it was in use it did not include either of those two parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and persondata now needs to be in infoboxes. Guess we are on the same page on that one? Montanabw(talk) 01:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er...the whole point of deprecating it was to move the data to Wikidata, but why is that relevant here? The data we're discussing would never have been in persondata. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got sidetracked. Originally I was just irritated because I thought your dislike of infoboxes was making you bite a newbie. Never mind, I got off the topic. Just try not to be so doggone pedantic about data in an infobox, OK? The wiki won't break if people list children's names. Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

There aren't any sources on the top section. 333-blue 23:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

333-blue, there aren't supposed to be sources in the top section. The top section, or lead, is supposed to simply be a summary of the rest of the article, and the information there is sourced where it appears in the body. See WP:Lead. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, it will make others confusing. Where are all sources? Use ref name will be better, this is what I am thinking. 333-blue 04:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
333-blue, read WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article, if the lead material is sourced in the body text, it is not cited in the lead section. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're correct, but some infos only appear in the lead, and there are sources in the lead for several Good articles. 333-blue 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@White Arabian Filly, Montanabw. WP:LEADCITE clearly states "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers" The statements "there aren't supposed to be sources in the top section" or "if the lead material is sourced in the body text, it is not cited in the lead section" are oversimplifications to the point of being flat out wrong. I would say both of you have misrepresented the guideline. Even ignoring the special cases like controversial statements and quotations that must be sourced, other statements may be sourced depending on if they are deemed helpful to the reader. If there is dispute, consensus should be sought, as 333-blue did here by initiating a discussion here on the talk page. A proper response would have been something along the lines of "The statements in the lead are sourced in the body. Is there a particular reason why you think we should have redundant sources in the lead?" The editor tried to explain their reasoning (not very well I would agree) but they were not suggesting anything against the lead guideline. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess in this instance, I did cite the lead policy wrong. However, as you can see, there is no need to have sources in the lead on this particular article. There are no quotes in it, and they would only be redundant. In other articles, especially BLPs, it may well be different. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, I have 20 FAs and another 20+ GAs, I'm here to tell you that WP:LEAD is clear: 1) the lead summarizes the article. 2) Anything in the body should be sourced and if it is, then it is NOT sourced in the lead. The only time you have a source in the lead is if it's the only place that information occurs, and as a general rule, you will only see this in shorter articles that are not yet comprehenisive enough to be B-Class or above. I strongly suspect that 333-blue was trolling in the guise of acting like they were asking legitimate questions, but they were not... and they were reprimanded elsewhere for doing so. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's great you are active writing FAs and GAs. As such I hope you will be happy to have your understanding of WP:LEAD (as it currently appears) improved, or at least given some tips on how to convey its message. Nobody is saying that the lead should not give a general summary of the article; so your point #1 is not being discussed. You are wrong on point #2, however. WP:LEAD's lead itself clearly states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should [...] be carefully sourced as appropriate." What is appropriate? Here are some cases where a source must or could be found in the lead (with the direct material from WP:CITELEAD supporting them):
1. Controversial statements or those "likely to be challenged" about living persons (source must be used even if sourced in body) (@White Arabian Filly I haven't given the "living persons" part its just due prior to now so it is an important factor for Bud Dunn as you mentioned at the Village Pump.)
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. (WP:CITELEAD)
2. Direct quotes (source must must used even if sourced in body)
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. (WP:CITELEAD) This statement is actually ambiguously stated in the guideline but the best interpretation from the context is that redundant sources should be used in the lead.
3. Statements determined by consensus to need a source in lead (even if sourced in body).
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. (WP:CITELEAD)
4. Statements not appearing in body (usual sourcing rules apply) (as you mention)
The first three of these are important counterexamples to your statement that sources should never appear in the lead if sourced in the body. Saying so is more than misleading, it is just wrong. Boiling a guideline or policy down to too simple of a universal statement ends up ignoring complexity and allows a reader to misconstrue the actual guideline or policy. Hedge phrases like "Generally speaking", "Barring a few special cases", "Most of the time", "Normally", and so on are of high utility when trying to summarize a complicated document. Notice the difference between, "Sources should not appear in the lead if sourced in the body" and "Normally, sources should not appear in the lead if sourced in the body." The former is false while the latter is true. It is extremely important to be meticulous when trying to rely policy or guidelines, and especially when discussing them directly. This is true regardless of 333-blue's intention. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, I've been here almost 10 years now. I know that the nuances of WP:LEAD change from time to time. But for now, the real rule is, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." In application, you'll never get an article past FAC if you don't source almost everything, controversial, challenged, or otherwise. You also won't get an article past FAC if the sources are in the lead, save for things not in the body at all, with rare exceptions none of which apply here. So don't nitpick and condescend to me here, we were dealing with a troll, where WP:DENY is best, but now we have a silly drama over nothing. THIS article does not require citations in the lead. End of story Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, the point of my message — and I think I already stated this clearly — is to choose ones wording wisely when relying guidelines or policy. This is true whether one is dealing with a troll or not and it benefits all. (It is not about 333-blue or this article.) The audience of talk page comments is not merely the person to whom you are replying but all readers and editors of Wikipedia. This includes future and current editors who are still discovering and learning the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. As experienced editors we should recognize the value of clarity and precision and how improper understanding ends up causing real drama and can harm the reputation of Wikipedia itself. It is easy to imagine a new editor reading the initial comments in this thread (or the thread at the Village Pump that caught my eye) and walking away with the idea that "the lead shouldn't have sources", go on to "helpfully" delete sources in the lead when he/she sees them, quickly getting into revert wars and arguments, and then quitting the project and spending the rest of their days talking about their bad experience with Wikipedia and its editors. This is not a hypothetical because if you read any forums where people talk about Wikipedia, a large fraction of people have stories that may be the result of such policy misunderstandings. WMF surveys have found that editor frustration from reverts is one of the main reasons people cite for leaving the project and policy/guideline misunderstandings are probably reason for that. Therefore, I think it is exceptionally important that experienced editors be extra careful in their interactions with other users and I expect that experience should have given them the wisdom to wisely present policies and guidelines to prevent misunderstanding.
That said, what you wrote now confirms most of my points and I hesitated to even reply. But, on reflection, there's something very objectionable in the suggestion that there's a "real rule" regarding the lead, independent of WP:LEAD itself, like a "shadow guideline" experienced editors alone know how to enforce. The only real rules regarding the lead are those given at WP:LEAD. To imply otherwise means using a rogue personal guideline. Yes, there's room for interpretation of the guideline. And, yes, the nuance of WP:LEAD does change with time. And, yes, experience gives some direction when there's ambiguity. But any rule that goes against what is clearly stated in the current stable version of WP:LEAD is against the guideline. If someone dislikes the current version of WP:LEAD or thinks the wording needs improvement, it is for discussion and consensus on that talk page. By calling what you wrote the "real rule", you are implicitly stating that you are holding it up to a higher authority than WP:LEAD itself and minimizing the community effort that went into crafting it. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

As GA reviewer Montanabw says, images are not mandatory for GA status. What the criterion (6.) actually says is: "Illustrated, if possible, by images". Then, we need to first ask: "Is it illustrated?". If it is not, we proceed to inquire: "Why is it not possible to illustrate it?" Can the reviewer or the nominator White Arabian Filly answer this question for me. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finnusertop, there are apparently no free images of Dunn available on the internet. If somebody cares to find a picture of him and upload it using fair use rationale, since he's dead, they can (there's a fairly decent picture at the source about the Muscle Shoals sports hall of fame). I can't do it because my phone is my only internet connection, and it won't lift pictures from other sites. I've tried multiple times (even with public domain pictures) before and always failed. Therefore, it's possible for somebody else to add one picture. White Arabian Filly Neigh 14:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can upload it for you, if you can point me to the the exact source, White Arabian Filly. It was the answer I was hoping to hear – but this isn't the first time I've seen the criteria being passed of as a tautology (whether or not there are images -> images are not required -> the criterion is always "met"). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finnusertop, there are a couple to choose from at this site: Any of them are good, especially because he's riding a horse named in the article
I wonder how many people either don't know how to upload pictures or can't because of their computers? A smartphone is like a mini touch screen computer, and I know of at least 3 other editors who say that's all they edit with. Who knows how many more do but don't declare it? Or how many good articles are about living people or other subjects where fair use rationale won't be accepted? It makes you wonder, although it does seem like the reviewers would say so.
White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found some closeups here and here. What do you think, White Arabian Filly? (I love Google's newspaper search. Thank you for generously using this underutilized resource in this article.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finnusertop I really don't care, they all look good, although one of the advantages of the riding picture is that it can be used here too, since it includes the horse. I saw a picture of him standing by his second winner, RPM, too, but I can't find it right now. Yes, Google newspaper archive is one of my favorite sources. They are a good place to find reviews of older books and movies too. By the way, you don't have to ping me; I watch this page and all of the other articles I've created, plus a couple of others of interest. (The horse articles tend to attract vandalism, whitewashing, and all that kind of thing.) White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper photos are of extremely low quality. IF someone can to photoshop magic and clean them up a bit, it would be cool. Fair Use rationales work just fine, I've used them a ton of times, they just have to be kept tightly constrained to the topic; for example, I used more than one at Bazy Tankersley, which is a featured article. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@White Arabian Filly and Montanabw: I've uploaded one of the newspaper images. It's not perfect, but I think this article is better with it than without. You are free to either keep it or replace it with a suitable alternative. Good luck with the FA! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Any picture is better than nothing. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short and missing info[edit]

This is ridiculously short. For example, it jumps from his "teens" to about age 30. What happened during this time? Did he serve in WWII? How did this become and FA? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, go write an FA and go through the process yourself to see how hard it is. He didn't do anything particularly notable during that period, and as far as I know, he had no military service. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have to work with the sources we have. Also, you can create a user name and edit, rather than trolling. Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World War II[edit]

He was of military age during World War II. Why no mention of what he did during the war? The article reads like a one-note hagiography.68.146.140.188 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. See my post above. This should fail being an FA on lack of completeness.2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article can only include information if there are sources. If there's information in biographies or newspapers about parts of his life that are not covered in this article, that's certainly a flaw, but there may be no such sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't be an FA due to lack of completeness! This is GA level at best. There are multiple large time gaps in this article! By your logic an article only one paragraph long could be an FA. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no minimum size for an FA, though practically speaking if you could only find two or three sentences on a topic it probably wouldn't be notable enough for a separate article in the first place. There are certainly some very short FAs -- see this list of FAs by length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no record of him serving during WWII that I can find anywhere. If there had been, I would have included it. I included virtually everything I could find. This is a horse trainer, not a pop singer. He didn't have the paparazzi writing up every single thing he ever did. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd bother to read the thread above, you'd see I'm not just talking about WWII. WWI is just part of about a 15 year gap of a crucial time in his life and career. I've talking about HUGE gaps in coverage. You two are basically arguing "if there's no source for something/a big time frame, we can ignore that and make it an FA anyway." Hogwash. It can't meet the FA standard of "comprehensive" that way. The argument that there are other short FAs is a red herring. I'm sure most of them aren't comprehensive either. This sounds like another case of wiki making rules up to suit the insiders. Feel free to explain how this article is comprehensive. It isn't. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could just make up info about what he did and add it then, except it'd get removed. We can only write what we have sources to support, and we're only supposed to cover notable parts of a career anyway. Becoming a good horse trainer is a long, hard road, and most of them spend years exhibiting in little saddle club shows that might have only 50 horses competing, and work up to larger regional shows, then state-level, then finally national. The tiny local shows aren't notable, even by the standards of the local media, and the horses shown in them are soon forgotten. Feel free to criticize all you want to. I did literally hours of work on this, and included every scrap of info about Dunn I could find without going into trivia. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets the FA criteria, which you can read here. If you want to argue that the criteria are wrong, and should exclude articles such as this, post a note here. It's been discussed before, and there's never been a consensus to specifically eliminate articles on the grounds of length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article not only meets the FA criteria, it did so with a lot of searching for very difficult to find sources. To have anonymous IP posts here smacks of trolling. Montanabw(talk) 06:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but it could just be ignorance. Such a short article can "seem" incomplete to an outsider, especially one who hasn't read WP:RS or WP:V (which is virtually everyone). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Dunn image[edit]

I emailed the owner of this webpage to release the image of Bud Dunn to the public domain. Just keeping this link here for future reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebob99 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one might pass muster, but the other two may still have copyright held by the photographer. Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the pages on Commons, the same person took them and released them to us. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to AGF, they are nice to have! Montanabw(talk) 06:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wives[edit]

Was [Elaine McCarley https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=33195693] his first wife, or she the third wife? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have been his third and final one. In his obit, she's listed as surviving spouse and quoted about his career. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was McCarley her middle name or had she been married before she married the jockey? The Wikipedia article says her maiden name was Lewis.
The obituary says: "stepdaughter, Billy Ann Yeomans" no wonder that I can't find her in the birth index. Did the family change her from stepdaughter to daughter? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the McCarley name; I guess either way, middle name or previous married name, is possible. The source just gave Lewis as her maiden name and didn't say she was divorced or a widow. I have no idea about Billy Ann. The Burgess book lists her as Dunn's daughter, but she may have been adopted by Elaine. Or the book could be wrong, and she was the daughter of one of Dunn's wives by a previous husband and Dunn formally adopted her. By the way, he was a show horse trainer, not a jockey. Jockeys ride only in horse races and tend to have fairly short careers, partly because wrecks are common and partly becaus they must be as light as possible, which gets harder after a certain age. ☺ White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bud Dunn. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bud_Dunn&oldid=1207059657"