This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I've reinstated the lead to short tag, since the lead fails to summarize the article's main points, per WP:LEAD. All the reader surmises from the lead it that is a vague condition involving syndromes in horses that was discovered in 2001. Secondly, tt appears that that an expert in the subject has contributed greatly, which is welcome, but the article still can benefit from revision for appropriate tone and conciseness. An insider's knowledge still needs appropriate reliable sourcing: the potential for an apparent conflict of interest exists, and and any opinions should be removed to maintain a neutral POV. What is "obvious" to an expert may not be obvious to the reader. Heavy acronym usage should be avoided. In-text citations to personal photographs are primary sources (WP:OR) and shouldn't be used to verify a claim, but rather substituted for Commons images (or better yet, uploaded to Commons). And the narrative style can be abridged to simply present the facts, not the story behind the facts. The Mechanism of Action section can especially benefit from clarification, and appears to promote a hypothesis rather than neutrally describe the existing state of knowledge. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For all the bandwidth you just wasted here, you could just expand the lead yourself. For that matter, you could fix all the things you are complaining about. The content is essentially accurate, if not particularly well-written, so I see no need for mass-tagging, I'd suggest WP:SOFIXIT. Per WP:BITE, perhaps you could offer to help a possible new editor. Imagine how that would help. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
