Talk:Horse/Archive 5

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.141.5 (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail

This article falls short of GA on Wikipedia:Good article criteria 1a, 3, and 4. I do not evaluate items 1b, 2, 5 and 6.

• 1a: Individual sentences are mostly okay (considered in isolation), and the paragraphs mostly have a theme, but beyond that the article is very poor. The structure is weak, transitions are largely absent, and introductory paragraphs often seem to forget this is a wiki encyclopedia. Eg, "cold blooded" has several meanings, including poikilothermic, sluggish, and unflappable, but rather than wikilink to the relevant article, this article spends three sentences on disambiguation.
• 3: The article omits significant aspects of its topic (1a), and goes repeatedly into unnecessary detail.
• 4: The article is loaded with POV re preferred breeds, breed registries, "natural" gaits, temperament, training, management, "require" this and that, etc. Also, there is an excessive quantity of "wow" prose such as The horse's legs and hooves are also unique, interesting structures. Their leg bones are proportioned differently from those of a human. These sentences amount to notes-to-self about what to write about, without the actual writing.

In short, this is not an article in the usual sense. It is more of a list, being little more than a compilation of (overly long) summaries of other Wikipedia articles about some aspect of horses. Some content that belongs in this article is notably absent. For example, a species article normally starts by circumscribing the species and mentioning the most closely related other species, extant and extinct. Then, much of the article should compare and contrast this species to its sister taxa (those other species). Another long section should deal with the natural history of this species. Another should deal with its evolutionary history, and probably should refer to the Deep Time bit only in passing, putting its focus on the evolutionary history of the genus and this species. Then, as this is a domesticated species, a section on its domestication is necessary, followed by a cursory outline of only the most important information about modern breeds, breeding, etc. Stable management, training, uses, and equipment are tangents. Leave out all the many tangents, and permit Wikipedia's excellent category system to help the reader find those tangential articles if so interested. Sections in the article now that belong here are Evolution, Domestication and surviving wild species, and Biology. Biology should be trimmed of a lot of tangential detail better explained in linked articles, and should include the content (key information only) of the sections Gaits and Behavior. The entire Temperament section belongs under Breeds, which should come after Domestication, if at all.

I suggest the following TOC: <verbatim>

   * 1 Taxonomy
   * 2 Evolution
         o 2.1 Wild species surviving into modern times
         o 2.2 Other modern equids
   * 3 Biology
         o 3.1 Anatomy
         o 3.2 Physiology
         o 3.3 Life history
         o 3.4 Behavior
   * 4 Domestication
         o 4.1 The "Four Foundations" theory
         o 4.2 Feral populations
         o 4.3 Human uses
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References

</verbatim>

This article has a long way to go, to reach GA. I hope this review will inspire new enthusiasm sufficient to get it there. A quick fail seems in order, to allow all the time needed until the article is ready to be nominated for another GA review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Solicited comments

I was asked to look at this article to see if a quick-fail at GA was warranted. I am using quick-fail criteria as a basis for judgment.

It's difficult to write a comprehensive article on such a broad concept as "horse". I didn't check yet why this article was quick-failed (wanted to judge it by itself), but it looks to me that claims are cited - there are no uncited sections or paragraphs. The structure of the article is another issue that's difficult to reconcile with such a broad topic. There are justified see also tags that at glance seem to be confusing (Anatomy). I don't think this is a quick-fail criterion, however. Were I doing a GA review for this article, I would request the nominator to fix some of the spacing issues in the Anatomy, Temperament, and Notes sections.

The use of bullet points so early in the article caught my attention. However, one must reflect what the best authoritative sources determine are most important about the identification of a horse. If age and size are the primary characteristics of horse identification, then it appears to be appropriately reflected. One suggestion would be to add The following terminology is used to describe horses of various ages, according to the Awesomest Horse Authority Book on the Planet: If other factors - more veterinary or biological terms are used, the article should be changed to reflect that.

I would get someone at Template:Convert to write a better version of conversions of hands to feet and meters. The double parentheses are confusing. They seem to be able to knock stuff out like that for fun.

On the whole, I can't see how the article was quick-failed. I think it would improve in prose by a thorough GA review, but prose issues generally aren't quick-fail criteria. Also, I know not much about horses except that they like to step on me. I looked at The "Four Foundations" theory (no articles in subheadings, btw) again at the bullets. I think this could be expanded to rid the section of the bullets, as well as explaining some of the many horse terms. The bullets seem to straddle the line between too brief and jargon. At the same time the section is vague, starting with "There is a theory" and "some arguing"... According to whom? Who is some? Again, these are my quick observations and tips that would come up in a GA review, and not quick-fail criteria, in my understanding. I did not check for image licensing. --Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

From me too

Some more stuff. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I can see some of what Una is saying. I generally organize biology articles to have a taxonomy section with information on evolution, scientific and vernacular names, subspecies and classification contained therein.

• I wouldn't have quick-failed it as such, but then again it is a huge article, so maybe tehre is an assumption it will take longer than 7 days.

• The word 'horse' appears alot, and there are a few sentences with 'Horses are...' - these could do with some copyediting after order is sorted out.

• Agree with Moni3's points above WRT avoiding "There is a theory" and "some arguing" etc.

• I'd ditch the first para of Other modern equids - that can stay in the parent article.

• It is the same thing as with the three big articles I have worked on intensively, lion, vampire and schizophrenia, (and now major depressive disorder) that all have had material which has had to be moved to daughter articles and a much more succinct summary of section in the parent article.

• I dislike 'Seealso sections as they are repetitive and ugly (look at placement of Horse Tack). I a few cases tehy are helpful but I think most folks can use CNTRL-F these days.

Upon thinking about it, I wouldn't worry about GAR, but instead try to do as much with the suggestions here. I will keep looking, but the main goal is FA status, and plenty of the improvements suggested will take you in the right direction. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas, and Moni. I can see a lot of helpful things here. I don't agree about the need to totally reorganize the article to conform to the reveiwers ideal of an article. This is a very old article by Wiki standards (the first edits are from 2002, after all) and the consensus of the main editors has been that the content covered is needed in THIS article because it does get fairly high traffic. I can see adding a bit more taxonomic information, but as we've pointed out a couple of times, Domestic sheep, which is an FA, is organized much like this article, including information on cultural impact, history, reproduction, health, and breeds. That said, I think the editors here are happy to consider rearrangment, but this isn't just a biology article, it's also an article that introduces one of the most significant animals in human history (perhaps only the dog and cow have had more impact on human lives) and it's one of the most visited in Wikipedia also. Per [statistics] it got 133,000 hits last month alone. On those grounds, I resist removing information on the use of horses in sports, in history, behavior, gaits, breeds, etc. It's well within size guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GA quick fail

Some editors here seem to think Quick Fail is a worse outcome than On Hold. I think it is better, for two reasons, one procedural and one tactical:

1. Given the size of the article and the nature of the edits I think are needed, I am sure revising the article will take longer than 7 days. Indeed, 2 days have passed already, without significant progress on the article.
2. I think Quick Fail relaxes the perceived requirement that an article subject to GA review must meet any one reviewer's unilateral expectations.

For what it's worth, I also chose Quick Fail for Ficus maxima, an article that, like Horse, has a pervasive and non-trivial writing problem affecting how well the content conforms to the scope of the article.

I expected Quick Fail to be less objectionable than On Hold but, in light of the response here, I will change the Quick Fail to On Hold if Dana boomer (nominator of the GAN) asks me to do so. --Una Smith (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Una, what I found objectionable was that you reviewed an article that Montana was a major contributor to. Assuming good faith here, I'm sure you didn't realise that reviewing an article which was extensively edited by someone you have had disagreements with in the past would look bad, but it does. It would have been better to have left the review to someone else, just as I would expect Montana to decline to review articles you contributed substantially to. That's the main cause of concern here, at least from my end. Also, you seem to want to rewrite the article to conform to some standard mold, but this is not a standard species article, it's about an animal that is domesticated and has held a large part of human history and a special place in many people's lives. As I pointed out above, a better comparison than a "normal species" article would be Domestic sheep, which does go into the animal's relationships with humans and other such behaviors. This was very much a joint project of the Equine Wikiproject, and the decision on what we do will probably need to be decided by all of us. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference, and full disclosure: User_talk:Una_Smith#GA_review_of_Horse ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, your expectation is not mine. The objective here is to write one encyclopedia, and that means allies should not review articles written by one another. There is no such prohibition against people who are not allies, nor in my opinion should there be. --Una Smith (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

1. GA reviews may not be perfect sometimes and reviewers may err, if there is any dispute about the article passing or failing, we have the reassessment process. Anyone feeling the quick-fail was unjustified, Please ask for a reassessment. There ends the problem. It's not worth fighting about it.
2. The review seems to be very vague. I request the reviewer to point Faults or failures of WP:GAC so that the contributors can improve the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review: model(s) to use

It has been proposed that Horse emphasize human use of the horse, and Domestic sheep has been offered as an example. I think that is a good example, if the relevant content of Horse is moved to Domestic horse and the rest stays in Horse. Note that Domestic sheep has a companion article Ovis, but Equus is a much larger genus than Ovis, so would not suffice. Also, "horse" does refer to the domestic horse plus its sister taxa.

Here are several model pairs:

• Bos, Cattle
• Ovis, Domestic sheep
• Felis, Cat
• Gray Wolf, Dog

If Horse is split similar to Ovis and Domestic sheep, I would keep feral horses, wild horses, pre-historic horses, and horse-other hybrids in Horse, and move everything specific to domestication into Domestic horse. Or, Equus caballus and Domestic horse, with Horse being a disambiguation page. Sheep is a redirect, but its history shows some conflict over where it redirects to, so perhaps it too should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Layout

OK, there seems to be some concern about the article layout. I don't think any of the main article editors have problems with moving the existing information around, we just have issues with removing large sections of it wholesale! So, with that in mind, let's discuss the layout.

Here is the current TOC:

   * 1 Biology
         o 1.1 Age
         o 1.2 Size
         o 1.3 Colors and markings
         o 1.4 Reproduction and development
         o 1.5 Anatomy
               + 1.5.1 Skeletal system
               + 1.5.2 Digestion
               + 1.5.3 Teeth
               + 1.5.4 Hooves
               + 1.5.5 Senses
   * 2 Gaits
   * 3 Behavior
         o 3.1 Intelligence and learning
         o 3.2 Temperament
               + 3.2.1 "Hot" bloods
               + 3.2.2 "Cold" bloods
               + 3.2.3 Warmbloods
         o 3.3 Sleep patterns
   * 4 Breeds
         o 4.1 Origin of breeds
         o 4.2 Purebreds and registries
         o 4.3 Regional specialization
   * 5 Evolution
   * 6 Domestication and surviving wild species
         o 6.1 The "Four Foundations" theory
         o 6.2 Wild species surviving into modern times
               + 6.2.1 Feral populations
         o 6.3 Other modern equids
   * 7 Interaction with humans
         o 7.1 Sport
         o 7.2 Work
         o 7.3 Entertainment and culture
         o 7.4 Assisted learning and therapy
         o 7.5 Warfare
         o 7.6 Products
   * 8 Care
   * 9 Equipment
   * 10 See also
   * 11 References
   * 12 Sources

What if we moved stuff around so that it looked something like this:

   * 1 Taxonomy and evolution (old "Evolution" section)
         o 1.1 Domestication and surviving wild species
               + 1.1.1 The "Four Foundations" theory
               + 1.1.2 Wild species surviving into modern times
               + 1.1.3 Feral populations
               + 1.1.4 Other modern equids
         o 1.2 Breeds
               + 1.2.1 Origin of breeds
               + 1.2.2 Purebreds and registries
               + 1.2.3 Regional specialization
   * 2 Biology
         o 2.1 Age
         o 2.2 Size
         o 2.3 Colors and markings
         o 2.4 Reproduction and development
         o 2.5 Anatomy
               + 2.5.1 Skeletal system
               + 2.5.2 Digestion
               + 2.5.3 Teeth
               + 2.5.4 Hooves
               + 2.5.5 Senses
         o 2.6 Movement (old "Gaits" section)
         o 2.7 Behavior
               + 2.7.1 Intelligence and learning
               + 2.7.2 Temperament (remove subsections, merge into one section, possibly trimming)
               + 2.7.3 Sleep patterns
   * 3 Interaction with humans
         o 3.1 Sport (merge old "Equipment" section here)
         o 3.2 Work
         o 3.3 Entertainment and culture
         o 3.4 Assisted learning and therapy
         o 3.5 Warfare
         o 3.6 Products
         o 3.7 Care
   * 4 See also
   * 5 References
   * 6 Sources

This is just a draft, let me know what you all think. Dana boomer (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the reorg, I'm just not in favor of ruthlessly purging the article of information, since most of the information DOES relate to horses and their impact on people. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally favor putting all the taxonomy stuff first, other than in the infobox, because it's complex and often a bit dull. Like cat, dog, etc., these animal articles are often accessed by kids, so I say keep the biology stuff first, the how big are horses, how long do they live, etc...then taxonomy second (for the college kids who want the quick info) and then the rest. I'm otherwise OK with the internal reorg, would like the opportunity to take first whack at the temperament section, if possible. As for GA review, I'd rather defend some of our decisions than change things in some cases. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just noticing now that I misread what Casliber said above. I thought he wanted the Taxo section first, where in reality he just wanted it to exist. So, that being said, I could definitely be brought to agree with Montana, as she points out some good reasons for the organization to be biology, taxonomy, humans. Also, Montana, I have no problem with you taking first stab at the Temperament section, since that is your baby.

Are there any non-equine people reading this who disagree with the direction this discussion is headed? Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there didn't seem to be any disagreement, I've gone ahead and made the proposed moves. Feel free to tweak as you wish. Montana, I only removed the subheadings from the temperament section, and did not remove or change anything with the prose itself, so you're free to have the first stab at it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey, and if I'm pokey, you know where to find me and "nag" me :-P I should be getting back in the swing as this week progresses. I hope. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done tweaking for now. Question: Should the "care" section be moved up somewhere before "interaction with humans?" I mean, it IS human interaction, but care is a more practical section, seems to fit more with the basics, maybe after biology as it's own short section, not a subsection? Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I favor putting taxonomy first because it defines what is a "horse", hence the scope of the article; the rest of the article follows from that. I favor putting it in its own section so that readers who are not interested can skip right over it to the next section. Points of high interest belong in the lead of the article, and in the lead paragraph of each section. The structure of the article, on the other hand, should accommodate readers who read the article from start to finish; so it should follow some kind of internal logic. --Una Smith (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Ealdgyth's "I'm fine ..." above (diff), my opinion: the article is loaded with details imported from other articles. Don't force the reader to wade through those details, let the reader follow a link if they are interested. --Una Smith (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's more like other articles were spun off from this one with remnants and "main" links left behind. That's the history of the article. I've been following it for however long I've been on wikipedia. At least a dozen new articles were spun off from this one in that time, and even more before that, I'm sure. Montanabw^(talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I do not favor cutting out much of the information in the article, as generally this is all information that people who want to know about horses will want to know. I cannot tell you the number of times I get asked about the age horses live to (and this includes at FAC), or other information about their care and feeding. This is not a warbler species article, it is an article about a species who is intertwined with human culture. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dittos. Compare other companion animal articles such as cat and dog. Both have extensive sections related to human interaction, though each is arranged very differently. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting all these tangential details in this article amounts to cruft, and it is very tedious to read. But hey, if you must insist on keeping all that stuff, I will start adding all my many favorite factoids about horses. No, seriously, I dislike reading in this talk page some contributors are told sorry their pet factoid can't go in the article because it is full ... of other contributors' factoids. It sounds like Ealdgyth and Montanabw are trying to write Frequently asked questions about horses, except that article does not belong in an encyclopedia, does it? --Una Smith (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what? This article is the first place a lot of folks WILL end up with questions about horses, since it's going to show up high in Google searches. I thought the idea of the articles was that we were writing for the readers, to give them information that they were looking for. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said during the present GA review, I'd like to see a few changes to the structure, but so far as the charge of cruft is concerned I think the article has it just about right. There's a fine line, particularly with domesticated animals it seems, between providing relevant and interesting information and writing a how-to manual. Compare this Horse article with Ferret, for instance, which I've struggled with for what seems like my entire time on wikipedia, and it's hardly any better now than it was two years ago. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Horse/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I think the proposed reorganisation of the article would be a significant improvement, so I'll defer carrying out the review until agreement has been reached on that and it's either been done or agreed not to be done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, this was mentioned at WT:1C, so someone should be nice and copyedit it ... if you want to go solo on this, it's all yours, but I'll be happy to jump in. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel to help wherever you can, so jump in! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(whinnies) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith said over at WT:1C to hold off on copyediting; give me a holler when you're ready. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that most of the actual article editors are fine with appropriate copyediting by you folks, Dan and Malleus. I most certainly am, and I think that Ealdgyth and Dana are as well (I hope I am not speaking out of turn for them). While we are having a discussion over whether to rearrange the sections and if there is anything we can or should cut, in the meantime, a copy edit of what is there would be most welcome, and we will most certainly listen to any constructive comments. I suspect all of us in WPEQ have probably been looking at the article so long that we are getting cross-eyed! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a copyedit taking place. Fresh eyes are always welcome! I agree that I'm probably too involved in the article to be able to see all of the grammar/prose issues that need fixing. Go ahead with the c/e, and if you see anything major that confuses you or that you're not sure you should change or how to change, just drop a note here on the talk page and someone will probably reply within a few minutes. One of the three main editors is online almost all the time, and this page is pretty near the top of our priority list right at the moment! Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm keen to get started with this review, but I'm not keen on the current organisation of the article. Is there a consensus in favour of its suggested reorganisation? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Montana, Ealdgyth and I all appear to be in favor of the current organization (which has been modified from the original version, although not completely reorganized). Una is in opposition to this organization, but she appears to be the only one. We have not had comments from other editors, although if anyone else cares to weigh in, we would welcome their input. Casliber asked us to include a section named Taxonomy, which we have done, although he did not specify (as far as I can see) where he wanted it placed in the article.

The argument for the current arrangement appears to be the the main audience for this article (presumably middle-school girls) is most interested in the biology of the horse (age, colors, etc), and so that should be placed first. Taxonomy comes second, for college-age readers looking for a quick over-view, and then human interaction last. Human interaction is a significant part of what a horse is, and so there is going to be a significant section devoted to this. The argument for the taxonomy-first arrangement appears to consist mainly of "because that's the way all the other species articles do it". Also, despite the fact that many other species articles don't include a human interaction section, we (the main editors) feel that one is important in the horse article because of the length, breadth and importance of the interaction between horses and humans.

Malleus, if you would like to outline your opposition to the article as it now stands, we are all willing to listen. However, arguments based on "but everyone else does it that way" appear to have been roundly rejected by the main editors (including myself) due to the fact that the horse is not a typical animal, and therefore should not have a typical article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is that I'd like to see Taxonomy and evolution instead of Biology as the first section. It seems like a bit of an afterthought placed where it is now, and I think it makes sense to deal with yhe horse's evolutionary history before the current situation and jumping off with details on age, for example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not many species co-evolved with humans to the extent that horses did ... I suppose bedbugs, mice, rats, cats and dogs come to mind. I haven't looked up bedbugs, but cat, mouse and rat all say significant things in the first section about the interrelationship with humans ... and I think that's exactly right, that's what 99% of the readers will want to see in the first section. Dog deals with taxonomy first, which gets it wrong, I think. I don't have a strong feeling about what aspect of the interrelationship with humans should be mentioned in the first section, but I'd be looking for it to be enough to pull me in and answer one or more questions that middle-school girls (see above) generally ask. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to throw in a monkey wrench, but there is also an argument to be made that the horse is the only animal that is a participant with humans in sporting events (well, and some dogs, too, I guess), horses, for example, are the only animals that participate in the Olympics. So while we didn't put the article up for GA in the sports section, we arguably could have (grin) as we definitely have a very unique critter here. I can see how there can be an argument for a chronological organization to the article, but that isn't the only possible option. (Does anyone even know if WikiProject Mammals has a standardized template, by the way?) The horse's evolutionary history is interesting, but not as interesting as the makeup of the modern animal. The other problem with a chronological arrangement is that doing so could mean we pull the domestication and human interaction sections up too, putting biology yet farther down the page, which is something I looked at real seriously about 6-8 months ago and decided was unworkable. I guess I also concur with Dana and Dan that this article needs to be considered on its own merits more than in relationship to a set template. We ARE willing to listen and it isn't impossible that some solution can be found...but the problem is figuring out how to tweak one thing without the rest tumbling down on our heads. Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've given my view that I'd prefer to see the article structured a little differently, but this isn't FAC, so I'm not going to stick on the ordering of sections; that discussion can wait until FAC so far as I'm concerned. I'm not as enamoured with the idea of writing this article as if it's targetting middle-school girls as others seem to be, in fact I'm rather against it, but I'm prepared to look at each section in turn and turn a blind eye to the overall ordering for this GA review. The structure can be dealt with at the article's FAC, it's not a show-stopper for GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the order you want is spur-ious, just that it not be as dry as some of the other species articles, because, well, it's horses. But we can save this for FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, indeed, we may take another look at the issue when we go to FA, but for now, it's only GA we are after. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument against making the reorganization I propose seems to be "we can't be bothered". Well, frankly, that isn't good enough. The reorganization should be a show stopper for GA, because major reorganizations needed at FAC are a reason to fail the FAC. --Una Smith (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not at all a fair characterization of the argument, and you should discontinue such characterizations. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the focus of this article is the horse's special relationship with man, then the title should be Domestic horse. That too is something to address now, not at FAC. --Una Smith (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the reorganization is needed for FA though, yet. Malleus want it, but I haven't seen Dan do so. There is no "right" way to organize an article, and frankly, you need to persuade the rest of the editors on the article that your preferred layout is the way to go. So far all we've gotten is some "every other article does it this way". Malleus has at least explained a bit more indepth why he would like it that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this article will require some reorganisation at FAC, as well as being an open question as yet, is irrelevant so far as this GA review is concerned. If every GAN was failed because it might require some work at FAC we'd have no GAs at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Weighing in here briefly on two points. One is that, other than the less than 2000 or so Przewalski's horses in zoos and in the 300 or so in the wild, the remaining 30 million or so horses worldwide are "domesticated," and any feral horses descend from domesticated stock. Also, though some taxonomists apparently still argue about it, there is some consensus that Equus Caballus and Equus Ferus are separate species or at least subspecies of genus Equus, akin to the wild and domestic species in genus Ovis ("sheep"). Thus, per WP:UNDUE, it actually makes more sense to have a separate article titled wild horse, and, in fact, voila, we already do! We also have equidae, which encompasses certain non-horse wild equids. This parallels cattle, which is distinct from bovid, and I must note that dog is not titled "domestic dog," but is distinguished from canidae. and cat which is not titled "domestic cat," etc.

My second point is simply to support Malleus' comment that GA is not FA and we must be careful to "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." There may yet be some other folks out there who can help us sort out the organization impasse on the placement of the taxonomy section, but I see no reason to be hugely concerned now. If consensus changes down the road, all we have to do is just flip the sections, which will take about two minutes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. GA is not FA... certainly FA is where this hugely important article needs to be, but this is a GA review. The One True Organization does not need to be determined at this time, much less implemented. Which is good, since there seems to be clear disagreement about what the One True Organization actually is. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

• I have never reviewed a species article. Doubtless these things have been discussed a zillion times, and there are rules for these things, but "odd-toed" sounds odd to me, I'd prefer maybe "hooved (ungulate) mammal". If toes must be mentioned, I'd say one-toed, even if you link to odd-toed ungulates. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless Ealdgyth or Dana disagree, I think there is room to tweak that, my understanding is that in the taxonomy world, it's a big deal if an ungulate is even-toed (like a cow or sheep) or odd-toed. This language has been in the lead for at least two years though, so if someone can help smooth it out but stay accurate, no one "owns" that terminology. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'm edit-happy, but we've got brutal WP:V0.7 deadlines, so I'll leave the edits up to you guys, most of them anyway. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I tweaked the lead sentence; feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Horses are described in terms that describe...": fine for GAN, prob'ly not for FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

Feel free to tweak. All we want to do is warn people that there is A LOT of weird horse lingo! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just mean don't say "describe" twice in a row at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It's now "horses are described in terms that portray...". Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I tweaked it again, even more radically, to just restructure the whole darn sentence. Hope that helped. Montanabw^(talk) 04:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "and are anatomically designed as a herbivore with the ability to use speed to escape predators": I'm in an odd mood tonight, but I'll just go with it, and hope it's not affecting my judgment; hopefully some of this advice turns out to be useful. I'll probably find out from the response. Anyway, I wouldn't say it this way, I would say "share anatomical features with other herbivores; for instance, they can outrun most natural predators." It's true that natural selection "designed" them this way, but it kind of breaks the flow to think in those terms, to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) P.S. Strike that; I'd just say they can outrun most natural predators. Saying that they share features or are designed as a herbivore begs the questions "which ones?" or "in what way?"; I would just list whichever features I wanted to talk about.

Okay I tweaked this to say that (with caveats) they can outrun their common predators. That seems like a stronger statement; now I'll go try to find a ref. I'll self-revert if I can't find the ref I want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-reverted, but move "herbivore" up to top paragraph; feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Room for wordsmithing if you can help. The point here is that predators have sharp teeth for protection, and many other large prey animals have horns, tusks, or antlers. Horses don't; so running is the best they have and so they're particularly good at it. (If cornered, they can fight with teeth and hooves, but it's not their first choice). That's something special about them. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: I rephrased the two sentences into one, tossed the bit on size, putting size into the earlier laundry list. May read better now.

• "a unique trait: horses are able to sleep both standing up": the word "unique" has been evolving, but I'm still more comfortable with using unique to mean "the only one". I believe giraffes sleep standing up (less than 2 hours a day btw), and cows take naps on the hoof. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

Don't know. Open to rephrasing if needed. Most cows around here lie down for much longer periods than horses, I don't think they have the stay apparatus that allows them to literally sleep standing up. Giraffes, I have no clue. This is "Unique" in at least they have a rare and special trait, if not the only critter. You can say "unusual" or something if that helps. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, now "unusual". Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The difference between a horse and pony is not simply a height difference, but also a difference in phenotype or appearance". What is a difference in height if it's not a difference in appearance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we go on to explain the other differences, but feel free to rephrase that opening sentence if it's illogical. It's not only height that makes a horse or pony, it's limb length, head size, body proportions, etc... Sort of like comparing a person with dwarfism to a short but ordinary human. The 14.2 hand cutoff alone doesn't make a horse or pony. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: I tweaked this some more, and caught some redundant stuff in the process and restructured a bit. Hope an improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• AP Stylebook and TCMOS say to always put commas and periods inside quotation marks; however, TCMOS says that in what is "sometimes called the British style", only the punctuation that was present in a quote goes inside the punctuation marks. WP:MOS takes that a step further, and wouldn't want the comma inside "cold bloods," for instance. (Of course, WP:MOS is not required for GAN; WIAGA was updated recently to make that clear.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

That seems to change a lot? Last I looked (like a year and a half ago, I admit) it was punctuation almost always inside. But whatever. I'm in the "punctuation almost always inside of quotation marks" camp, but if it's a dealbreaker, we won't be anal about it. At least I won't. But maybe Dana or Ealdgyth have an opinion on the matter. Not a moral issue to us! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... horseshoers, or farriers" makes it sound like they're alternatives. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Farrier" is the most proper term, but it's weird horse lingo and often used interchangeably with "Horseshoer" even by horse people. In getting other articles to GA, we have run across a lot of reviewers who want us to explain the weird words as we go, even if they are wikilinked ... feel free to smooth that out if you can do so. In short, a farrier is the technical term for a professional horseshoer, though the best farriers will sometimes get into arguments that not all "horseshoers" are farriers. (There was actually a minor discussion on the topic at Horseshoe or farrier. Those who care, care deeply). If you can improve phrasing, go for it, please!  :-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "specially-developed breeds": when I read this, I thought "Aren't all breeds specially developed? Isn't that what makes them a different breed?" But maybe it's just the mood I'm in. Anyway, are you saying that these are recently developed or unusual breeds in some way? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Will peek at the context and get back to you. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Ah, we are still in the lead. The context is that we are summarizing bits of both the "temperament" subsection and the "purebreds and registries" subsection. So yes, we are sort of explaining that the warmbloods are a little more specialized, but I agree with you we have that a little weirdly-worded. If you can cook up a good re-summary after reading the stuff it references, I'm all ears! Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "often focusing on creating breeds for specific riding purposes". Feel free to change if this doesn't work, either. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Some regions in the world are known for a specialty in development of a particular breed or set of breeds, such as": it's fine, but I bet you dollars to donuts if you leave it that way, someone at FAC will say that you could say that in fewer words. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

I personally have thought about cutting that whole bit, but in all the wikipolitics haven't had time to bring it up with the others. If it disappears, would it be a loss? Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd cut it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we discussing cutting the whole section on Regional specialization later in the article, as well as the sentence in the lead? If so, I'm OK with it. Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I chopped the whole magilla. Feel free to restore if that was too drastic. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "have extensive interactions today": such a hard judgment call; Wikipedia always wants detachment, sometimes to the point of coldness, but when first mentioning the relationship between horses and humans, I would go with something a little warmer; maybe "Today, ... depend on each other in many ways ..." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Now I see the next sentence starts "Many products are made from horse meat..." Holy non-sequitur. Okay, maybe your way is better. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) P.P.S. It's okay that way, but I'm pretty sure I would go with "depend on each other", and lose the horse meat, even if the lead is supposed to be a summary. For many readers, it's not what they're looking for in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely room for improvement. The horsemeat thing is a really tricky and touchy issue. Horse slaughter is about as controversial as, oh, say, the human abortion issue for non-horse people. No joke. Prior to my becoming a wikipedian (2+ years ago), there was apparently a huge edit war over the issue (I think it's archived somewhere) and whatever got left in there was something of a resolution that we've been hesitant to disturb. Apparently the argument went that not mentioning horsemeat was POV because worldwide a lot of people eat horsemeat. I say whatever minimizes edit wars. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way gents, THANK YOU for this work. Your perspectives are very valuable to us. When we get deep into horse talk, the English language sometimes gets lost in the shuffle! Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That whole section begs for a globalize tag. --Una Smith (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead has been changed around. The products sentence got moved farther down the paragraph by Malleus, and then I changed the first sentence to the wording proposed by Dan. In response to Una, if you are discussing the product section, I would like to know what you think is not global. We mention the Mongols, Canada (not directly, but I believe this is where Premarin is made), the US, Italy, Asia, and generic "other countries". Do you have more you would like to add? Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll agree with "whatever minimizes edit wars"; you'd know best. I just hate to say things that turn people's stomachs right in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

As active horse owners, I think the current lead editors all sympathize with your position!  :-) But I'll wait to see what the others have to say. Inevitably if we cut it, probably someone will pop up and tell us we are not being NPOV... Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per MWOS, ridgling (and presumably rig) are not proper nouns. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

Yes, but per whatever source we were using, they ARE more weird horse words! (grinning)...if the cite is inadequate, go ahead and slap a tag on that and we'll look into it. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, PROPER noun, you're right. I misread the intent of your comment, sorry! Fixed that and added another ref for good measure. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of copyeditors is so that writers don't have to think of these things; hopefully we'll have more copyeditors available on Wikipedia soon. But copyeditors would say, if you're writing for a newspaper (or FAC!), you have to follow the capitalization and punctuation rules of the newspaper (or FAC!), not the source. The bottom line on AP Stylebook and TCMOS capitalization rules these days is, roughly, if you can manage to come up with an excuse to lowercase, do it. A dictionary definition is a sufficient excuse. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also lowercase "thoroughbred". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NO! In this case, "Thoroughbred" is a proper noun, referring to the breed. This was a long fought out issue when Thoroughbred went FA. I'll source if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred is the proper name of the breed, it should always be captialized if it is referring to the horse breed (which it always is in this article). Rest to comment tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have scrolled down (both in MWOS and in the article!) Must sleep. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Left my power cord at work and my laptop will go dead in a few minutes, so signing off for the evening. See ya' all tomorrow, I hope (may have some real life complications over the next couple days, so Ealdgyth and Dana can make any needed calls without waiting for me). Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Different theories exist to explain how this range of size and shape came about." Seems to be a non-sequitor. What range of size and shape? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now reads "Different theories exist to explain how the range of size and shape that is shown in modern breeds came about." Better? Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a bunch of this sort of is redundant with the four foundations theory in the evolution section, so I chopped it in the origin of breeds section and moved it up and merged it in the four foundations section. Hope that wasn't too drastic. I think it eliminated some redundancy. Montanabw^(talk)

• "... while others, such as Tennessee Walking Horses and Morgans, developed from a single sire with tremendous influence". I don't understand what the phrase "with tremendous influence" is trying to convey.

Changed to "such as Tennessee Walking Horses and Morgans, developed from a single sire from which all current breed members descend." Good? Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I changed one of the instances of double parentheses to "(56 to 64 inches, or 140 to 160 cm)". If you like the way that looks, there are a few more to change. If not, feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see your post here before I reverted you. Sorry :( My opinion is that I like the use of convert templates because it makes it harder for well-meaning but clueless editors (or vandals) to change the conversion numbers. Also, please note that we'll get hammered at FAC (and possibly by Malleus, as well) by having convert templates in some locations but not others. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I made it down to Taxonomy with minor copyedits. From there, I made it to the end of the article, but turning off my copyediting brain and reading for comprehension and clarity. Clearly, the article is high-quality and needs little copyediting work. Please let me know on my talk page if you have more questions. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• "They have a relatively small stomach ...". Relatively small compared to what? Humans? Other herbivores of similar size?

Horses, in terms of ratio, have a stomach that is smaller in proportion to their intestines than do humans. As compared to other non-ruminant herbivores, I can't say. The comparison is to humans, explaining why it is that horses feel they need to eat their heads off all day long-- small stomach, empties quickly, adapted to constant grazing of relatively dry forage. I'm looking over all the edits after I review the new but unanswered questions. If this one is still in need of help, I'll see if I can tweak it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: Tweaked this a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Other review issues

• Some of the footnotes end with a fullstop (period) but others don't. Ought to be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a difference between the web/journal refs, which are formatted with "cite xyz" templates in-line, while book refs are formatted with short refs in-line and full refs in a separate section. The web/journal refs have consistently have full stops, the book short-refs consistently don't. This is the way that we did it at Thoroughbred, which went FA with no problems. However, if you really want it changed, then I'll agree to it. If it's something else completely that you're looking at and I'm way off base, let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just another one of those things that'll need to be changed before FAC, but it's not a cause for failure at GAN. Just thought I'd mention it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this appear to be a problem with the templates themselves, or with the material as it was inserted into the templates??? Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither. Basically, the issue is that when we use full refs (for journals and web refs) the template automatically inserts a full stop at the end of the ref. When we use short refs (books), there is no template, and so no full stop. For the full refs of the books (in the separate section) there is a full stop. Clearer? Now, on to my argument for why they should be left as they are: because no one had a problem with them being like this in the Thoroughbred FA, or the recent GAN/MilHist A-class of Horses in warfare, or the recent GA of Haflinger (horse)...or any other article that does it this way, as far as I've ever seen. Feel free to disagree with me, and I'll go ahead and change them... Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In the past, this order contained 14 families and many species, but only three families—Equidae (the horse and related species), the tapir and the rhinoceros—have survived to the present day ...". Need to check that link to "family". It should be the first occurrence that's linked in any case, not the second.

Moved the link to the first occurrence, and changed it to Family (biology). Dana boomer (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... the concept of purebred bloodstock and a controlled breed registry only gained wide importance ...". Importance seems like the wrong word here. How can it be wide? Would something like "widespread aceptance" be better?

Will look at the phrasing. "Importance" is the right concept, if not the best wording. Registries were never a question of acceptance, more a question that people used to not care as much in the past as they do now. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: Rephrased sentence a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... will allow membership of any horse which meets a certain criteria, such as coat color ...". I wasn't sure how to change this. "Criteria" is obviously plural, so should it be " a certain criterion"? Or should it be "which meets certain criteria", even though coat color is the only example given?

I'll look at this also. We are trying to diplomatically say that there are some "registries" that are really just operations that seem to run on the concept, "send us $30 and we'll send you a pretty piece of paper, laughing all the way to the bank." (grin) FOLLOW UP: Tweaked sentence to make it all plural. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Cloning of horses is highly controversial, and at the present time most mainstream breed registries will not accept cloned horses ...". Need to say when "the present time" is. As of 2008?

And probably for a long time to come. The breed registries, in general, are absolutely adamant. Worth further discussion if it's a deal-breaker for GA, but my feeling is that this can stay worded as such until the situation changes. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Russia takes great pride ..." is just a little too peacockery/flowery for me.

OK, if someone else didn't tweak it, I will. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: Now moot, as I cut that whole regionalization section per what I think was editor consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit unhappy about the apparent inconsistencies in the Size section, although that may be more down to my ignorance than any actual inconsistency. Horses are variously given as "He stood 21.2½ hands high" followed by a conversion to imperial/metric, or only in imperial/metric as in "She is 17 inches (43 cm)". The spacing between the number and the units also appears inconsistent: "Thus a horse described as '15.2 hh' ...", vs "An animal 14.2h ..". Shouldn't there always be a space between the number and the units?

I shall defer to Dana, who can do conversion templates better than I, and I think she got this taken care of?? Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The text in the Temperament section is squeezed between left- and right-aligned images.

We cut a lot of text to trim that section, should all three be aligned on the same side?? Feel free to tweak if you haven't already (am answering here before tackling the article) Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "There is a theory that, prior to domestication, there were four basic "proto" horses that developed with adaptations to their environment. There are differing opinions within this theory, some arguing that the prototypes were separate species, others suggesting that the prototypes were physically different manifestations of the same species. Either way, all other types and breeds of horses are thought to have developed from the following base prototypes." I'm confused by this. What are these "other types and breeds of horses"? I'd also prefer to see who holds these ideas, or proposed them, rather than just "some", or "others".

There are older theories, I think we cited to one. I'll look the over again. Basically, all we are saying is that not everyone agrees, but the four foundations is currently the theory with the strongest support. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: The whole thing gets mentioned again in the breeds section. Will try to clean up. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: See new subsection below, I consolidated two places the topic was raised into one. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's about it for this review. I'm formally placing this article on hold now, pending the satisfactory resolution of these issues. This is clearly a quality article that deserves to be listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for fellow editors

OK, we are so close, now I see a couple things I am wondering about (I shouldn't have taken a few days off, darn, now I can see the article with new eyes!). I don't think any of this is an issue for GA, more my own anal-retentiveness and thoughts on article flow/structure that I want to toss out for comment:

• The "Breeds" subsection may or may not fit under Taxonomy and Evolution. I sort of think it needs to be re-broken out as its own section, though kept in the same place. This is not a moral issue to me, just a flow issue.
• The "Taxonomy and Evolution" section also includes a big chunk on Domestication. So should we either add "Domestication" to the main heading, or make the "Domestication and surviving wild species" into its own main section? Again, not a moral issue, maybe I'm just being anal. I did swap the four foundations section and put it above the domestication section to keep the proper chronological flow.

Other than the above, I made some tweaks to the article that seemed to improve phrasing or flow. I chopped or moved some redundant material and stuck in some hidden comments for particular tweaks where I think Dana or Ealdgyth need to review, and after that anyone can toss the hidden text in a day or so. If I just restored something had been my wording but someone else thought should have been done differently, it was accidental and you can re-fix it if I made things worse instead of better! Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Montana asked for another readthrough. Dana, how do you feel about "14.0 to 16.0 hands or 56 to 64 inches (140 to 160 cm)" instead of "14.0 to 16.0 hands (56 to 64 inches (140 to 160 cm))"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I don't like that. "Or" implies that they are alternatives measurements, not just alternative ways of representing the same measurements. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, technically, at least the imperial and metric are "different"... they're the same at that accuracy level but different if you go out more places of accuracy. I agree that how to handle 3 measurements is messy... I suspect this problem has come up elsewhere, how was it solved there? ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Aha, there's another parameter in {{convert}} I didn't know about, how does this look? 14.0 to 16.0 hands (56 to 64 in or 140 to 160 cm) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I was just about to make a very similar suggestion. I'd prefer to see the same precision used in all of the numbers though, so I'd prefer this: 14 to 16 hands (56 to 64 in or 140 to 160 cm). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Problem is, a hand is a lot larger unit of measure than an inch (I think it's something like 4 inches but I forget...) and there are only 3 subdivisions of it (14.0, 14.1, and 14.2... the next subdivision of it after that is 15.0 hands, if you ever see someone say 14.4 hands, they don't know horses) so I'd argue that you need the .x (which is about an inch and a third) on there. Believe me, I mostly only pay the feedbill on our horses and there is a LOT of difference between a horse that is 14 hand and one that is 15. A lot more than one that is 56 versus one that is 57 inches. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm simply asking for a consistent level of precision in the conversions, as per theMoS. I was specifically talking about the example given, 14 to 16 hands (56 to 64 in or 140 to 160 cm). Had the example been 14.2 to 16.1 hands, for instance, I'd have wanted to see the conversion given as (56.8 to 64.4 in or 144.3 to 163.6 cm). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  A consistent level of precision isn't just determined by where the decimal point is, or even (exactly) how many significant digits. If I told you something was 1 mile long, and then I told you it was 5678 feet long, which is more "precise"? To the nearest mile 5678 feet is 1 mile. But the 5678 feet measurement is far more precise. Yet both are without any decimal point. Even if I told you it was 1.1 mile, I still am less precise than 5678 feet... even when I tell you it's 1.08 miles, I'm STILL less precise than 5678 feet. This is an extreme example, but 16.1 hands is almost exactly as precise as 65 inches (it's 65 and 1/3 inches). 16 hands is about 1/4 as precise as 65 inches since a hand is 4 inches. See what I'm saying? Now, if it will make you feel better, use 16.1 hands and 65.3 inches, since those both have 1 digit after the decimal point (except that .1 and .2 are NOT in base 10... they are in base 3... it goes 16.0, 16.1, 16.2, 17.0)... but now you STILL have made inches more precise. This same problem is present when we give inches and centimeters, but it's not as noticable since the ratio of difference is less. Hope that helps. This is all IMHO of course. But horse people for the most part always give the .x after the whole number of hands, from what I've seen. I think the MOS is contemplating inches and cm, and miles and km, where the ratios are similar, and this is a place to ignore the MOS. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  I believe that you're confusing "precision" with "accuracy". I'm using the word precison in its mathematical sense, the number of digits following the decimal place in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  PS. I do understand that the decimal point in hands isn't actually a decimal point (unlike the convert template), so on reflection the point about consistent precision only really applies to the bracketed imperial/metric conversions). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Errr... actually, hands are base 4. 14.1 is 14 hands and 1 inch, 14.2 is 14 hands and 2 inches, 14.3 is 14 hands and 3 inches.... and then it rolls to 15. A hand is 4 inches, and yes, we do use .3 to mean 3 inches. So there are four subdivisions ... .0 .1 .2 .3 ... 15.1 hands (to use one of my horses's height) is 61 inches. Another of my horses is 15.3 and a half hands tall... which is 63.5 inches tall. (Yes, it's fun when a horse is not exactly right on inches so you have to go 15.3 and a half...) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the convert template might be b******d then, because it gives 15.1 hands ({{convert|15.1|hand|in|1}}) as 60.4 in. Looks like it's treating the decimal place as a real decimal point and multiplying by 4. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but some readers might think, "Wait a minute, domesticated in 4500 BC? I thought I remembered that cavemen had horses." The Lascaux pictures from 16000 years ago would contribute to that, and for some reason people who like to draw cavemen just love to stick horses in (and even dinosaurs!). You might want to link to Lascaux, and/or mention that there's no evidence that early humans used horses for anything but food (if that's true). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• You guys overuse em-dashes a bit (compared with what American style guides and FAC are looking for ... if I brought up dashes at GAN, I'd get shot.) For instance, "A related hybrid, a hinny, is a cross between a stallion and jenny—a female donkey." Better would be "jenny, or female donkey" or (my preference) "jenny (female donkey)". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Check my work please, I was reading quickly to see if I could catch anything I missed before. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Checking in

Where are we standing, anyway? I know Dana was gone most of the weekend, and Montana has some personal things to attend to, so I guess it falls to me to check into what stil needs to be done (although if it's word tweaking, we know we don't want me doing it!). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about the burning issue of the day, "/" in {{convert}} templates? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what it does? (Blinks) In other words, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, our reviewers don't like the nested parentheses that our convert templates for hands measurements currently use. I don't blame them, I don't like them either, but I never found a way to change them, so I left them the way they were. Dan has found a solution that basically replaced xx inches (yy cm) with xx inches/yy cm in the convert template, and is wondering what we think of it. I've been gone, so hadn't had a chance to respond, and from what I've seen, Montana has been telling them to wait until I got back :) The whole discussion on this is above, but it's split into several locations since this has come up a couple of times.

Personally, I like the xx in/yy cm format, and would have no problem with using this. I just don't want to take out the convert templates in the hands measurement spots, because, as I mentioned before, then we'll get hit for not being consistent on the use of convert templates. Dana boomer (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we could wrap this up now if there was agreement with Dank55's suggestion above: "Aha, there's another parameter in {{convert}} I didn't know about, how does this look? 14.0 to 16.0 hands (56 to 64 in/140 to 160 cm)". However, I also want to see consistent precision, as in 14 to 16 hands (56 to 64 in/140 to 160 cm). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. You need to be aware that the hands conversion done by {{convert}} is incorrect, as I pointed out above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just tossing in that I apologize for being gone all weekend...had some personal issues pop up and then a nasty cold knocked me on my rear. I'm glad to see that things progressed without me, and I should be back on Wiki at my normal level by tomorrow afternoon at the latest. Dana boomer (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I've been wrapped up in a HUGE PR (RCC for your info Malleus) and the wild conversations going on at FAC (well, wild for FAC!) about the status of the whole system, so probably haven't been paying as much attention as I should have been. I'm fine with the "/" but i agree with Malleus on the precision thing, if the convert template is taking 15.1 and getting 60.4 inches out of it, we'll have to drop the convert templates. We can explain why they don't work at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The convert template is OK when converting between inches and centimetres, it just doesn't work for hands. So Dank's suggestion would be fine for both GA and FAC I think. All I added to his suggestion was that I wanted to see consistent precision (number of "decimal" places) for all of the measurements. I do fully understand though that the hands measurement is to base 4 rather than base 10, and I was particularly complaining about 14.0 hands (56 inches), rather than 14.0 hands (56.0 inches), or as I'd prefer 14 hands (56 inches). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What about I make the changes I'd like to see and then you can see whether you agree with them or not? Let's break this logjam. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, we all know I'm not a wordsmith. I have a lot of trust in your ability to copyedit without destroying the sourcing (which is, as usual, my main concern here... I've dragged us kicking and screaming to FA level sourcing and am loath to lose the progress). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you want to go ahead and make the changes, Malleus, that would be fine with me. We can tweak later (with discussion) if anyone has a problem with anything you do. And, since we don't use the hands measurement in the actual conversion template (I think there is a convert template for this, but we don't use it in the article as far I as know), it should be fine to just use the convert template on the inches and centimeters, with the "/" in between. If that makes any sense... :) Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me Malleus. I'm thinking Malleus just got added to the FAC co-nom list... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so hasty, I do have one last question. ;-) Can someone explain this apparent inconsistency? "Intermediate heights are defined by hands and inches, rounding to the lower measurement in hands, followed by a decimal point and the number of additional inches between 1 and 3." "The largest horse in recorded history was probably a Shire horse named Sampson, who lived during the late 1800s. He stood 21.2½ hands high...". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a definition thing. You are reading "round down" as meaning we round as in math. What is meant is that you give the number of whole hands, with the "excess" given after the decimal point in the number of inches over. Rounding in that phrase is wrong terminology, probaly better to say "Height is defined by hands and inches, giving the whole number of hands first, then any remaining inches after a decimal point." Does that work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that works for me. You make the change while I list this article as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The review is now closed and this article has been listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)