Talk:Anglo-Norman horse/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will review this nomination. Full disclosure: I am a wikicup participant.  Also, I have made 9 edits to this article.  However, as the last was in 2012 and most were "wikignoming" edits, I believe I am sufficiently uninvolved to provide a neutral edit and shall begin shortly.   Montanabw (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! I've almost completely rewritten the article twice, last year and this year, with huge help from Tsaag's work on fr.wp, so it's changed a lot since 2012. Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

All for now, more to come! Montanabw (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall comments:
 * 1) I recommend that "Selle Francais" be written as Selle Français, as that is how the article on that breed is titled and it indicates correct French pronunciation.  Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. - DB
 * 1) Morphology checks out as linking to a dab page, need to fix that.
 * Fixed this earlier; the checker must be outdated. - DB
 * 1) Ref 44 has a minor hiccup according to https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Anglo-Norman_horse - looks like the same article, but perhaps the web site is changing its internal URL or something.  Just verify it and comment back
 * Yeah, it was just a changed path. Fixed. - DB
 * 1) Swinney should go into refs and just the page number and short version in the footnotes
 * 2) Cheval Savoir is a magazine, the two articles by Amélie Tsaag Valren are inconsistently cited, the December 2012 one is in references, the January 2013 one is just cited in footnotes.  I don't have a real strong preference which way you go, but do both of them the same.  Also check other magazine references to be sure that you are consistent.  Also, the number "38 may be what the template wants you to do, but normally that goes with the "volume" parameter.  I recommend dumping that and just keeping the issue date.
 * For the above two, if references are used more than once they're in short form, if only once, they're in long form inline. This is how I've done it for all of the other French articles, because there are so many one-use books and journals. I'd prefer to keep the numbers, as another way for people to identify the particular ref. - DB
 * My view is that the placement of a reference in the "references" section isn't for things used twice, but rather for works such as books, long pdfs, or long magazine articles where you need to do refs to different individual pages. Here, the 2012 ref is just to  "Tsaag Valren (2012)" with no need to differentiate page numbers, so I think it makes sense to keep it the same as the 2013 ref.  I won't throw a fit over this, but JMO if you ever want to take this to FAC I think it would be pinged by some reviewers.  --MTBW
 * Yeah, but it's also used in #26 as a statement is attributed to another author within the journal. See the Houël, Ephrem...in Tsaag Valren (2012). Dana boomer (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True. Well, this isn't FAC, so I can live with it as is.  If this does go up for FAC, it may need some tweaking. But what about Swinney, I know it's used only once, but it's a book.  --MTBW
 * So are Poitrineau (#4), Collective (#9), Edwards (#11), Poulain (#12), Bouchet (#17), Dal'Secco (#22), Auzias, et.al (#23), etc. Check out Norman Cob or any of the other French breed articles that went through FAC - they have the exact same referencing system. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that works. I'll sign off on that. --MTBW
 * File:TvN, Anglonormanne.JPG needs a PD-US tag to go with the others; it was published prior to 1923, so it's OK, but the tags themselves say you need to do this.
 * 1) Ditto File:Anglo-normand du Merlerault-GAYOT ATLAS STATISTIQUE 1850.jpg and File:Anglo-Norman4.jpg
 * All fixed now. - DB
 * 1) Just me being fussy, not a GA requirement, but I'd reposition File:TvN, Anglonormanne.JPG a wee bit lower in the section; it bleeds into the next section, where it actually belongs..
 * 2) Also, caption "illustration of a painting" is kind of awk, I'd reword.
 * 3) Consider moving the Selle Français photo into the following section
 * Moved the first image down a bit, but didn't bump the SF photo because it would create a lot of white space and be sitting right under the header. They don't overlap, so I think it's good. - DB
 * OK --MTBW
 * 1) "famous" is a less-than NPOV adjective, I'd toss it.  Do a search and destroy for any others.  ;-)
 * Did a search and remove/reword. - DB
 * 1) Can the redlink for Merlerault be resolved to at least a general geographic area?
 * Fixed. It was properly linked later. - DB
 * 1) JMO, but I'd wikilink carriage.
 * Done. - DB
 * Best to link at first use, but I'm being fussy so I fixed that one myself. --MTBW
 * 1) " saddle horse" is hyphenated in one place but not in an another, should be consistent (I recommend not hyphenating this one)
 * Fixed. - DB
 * FYI, I haven't done a thorough copyedit yet, may get to that tomorrow.  Montanabw (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think all the above numbered items are now OK, except 9,   I do think that per my comment in the chart, I would make the footnotes two columns. I'll do a copyedit now and while I will probably just tweak any minor things myself (subject to your being OK with them) and bring any bigger concerns here. Should have this done soon. Montanabw (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit suggestions
I made a few minor changes as I went through, put in some hidden text where I think a minor change was needed but I was not the one to make it, and here's the bigger things that jumped out at me. Montanabw (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The first paragraph of the lede is pretty awkward. Content is fine, but how it's phrased is choppy and needs to be smoothed out.  I started into it, then thought better and figured I'd best let you work on it, The first and last sentences are OK, it's the stuff in the middle that needs help.
 * 2) A couple awk sentences in second lede paragraph: " While often purchased by the French army, there is controversy over whether they were the best horse for this use. " and the following sentence beginning, "The late 19th century ... " is a run-on sentence that needs some reworking.  Overall, I'd say the lede doesn't really give a representative summary of the history section, the conflict between the military and the carriage horse and farm breeders is interesting, but it's all a little fuzzy.
 * 3) Personally, I'd start a new paragraph at "In 1958" and expand a bit there about how the breed ceased to exist (that's not real clear in the lead) with the merge into the Selle Françias and expand a wee bit more on the attempts to recreate it. I think another one or two sentences will do it.
 * Did quite a bit of work on the lead - check it out. Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics

 * 1) I'd put the last paragraph, about height and appearance, first, then go into the subtypes. You might also want to only go on to describe the three main subtypes described in the second current paragraph and move the bit on the Merlerault, Carrossier Normand, etc., into the history section and blend with what's there.  I was getting confused.
 * Basically, I was trying to describe the changing types over time - the Norman had several distinct types (described in the first paragraph), which were mostly merged and crossed with Thoroughbreds to create the Anglo-Norman, which itself initially had several types (described in the second paragraph). By the 1960s, a couple of types had been split off, and the Anglo-Norman was a standardized type, although some authors didn't like the type (described in the third paragraph). I think if the first paragraph was moved to the history section, it would be even more confusing, because we would still have to explain where the different types described at the beginning of the second paragraph came from. What would happen if we put the Characteristics section after the History section? I know it's not common for breed articles, but it would give the reader a better sense of how the breed was created, and might lessen the confusion of the discussion of the different types... - DB
 * Given that this is an extinct breed, that's a possible solution. The problem, though, is that if I'm confused, then it's probably confusing for others (The editorial "we" and all.. LOL) In either location, it's still confusing.  I'm looking for simplicity - I kind of need a "1 this happened, 2, then than happened, 3 then the next thing happened... maybe even just a few more transitional sentences saying " The Anglo-Norman horse developed by the blending of foo number of breeds and as a result had foo different body types, blah, blah, blah...  Take a look at how Pitke handled the four body types of Finnhorse - she and I wrestled with that for months to get it to the point where it was understandable.  You may get ideas there.  Maybe just put both bits together into one comprehensive narrative and then see where they best fit?
 * OK, I've moved the first paragraph to the History section and reworked the second paragraph so that it doesn't depend on the paragraph I moved. If I move the second paragraph, it's going to leave a super-short characteristics section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This sentence sounds a little machine translated and has an awkward transition from the first sentence: "From Alençon, the Merlerault was developed from the Thoroughbred and was very popular at the end of the Ancien Régime. Mid-sized horses, they were particularly suited for riding and pulling small carriages."  I think you are discussing the Merierault, but it's a little unclear.  Also, according to Ancien_Régime, that period ended with the French Revolution in 1789, and if the Anglo-Norman developed in the early 1800s, we have a hiccup in the timeline.  Or re we discussing the three subtypes or the Carrossier Normand?? May want to check the source and clarify.  I popped in some hidden text where I was getting fuddled.
 * I did a bit on these sentences - better? Everything in the first paragraph is discussing the physical types of the Norman horses that were then used to develop the Anglo-Norman. The second paragraph is the types of Anglo-Norman. - DB
 * Better, but I think I'll just pop in more hidden text of suggested wording and see what you do with it. Might be clearer that way -MTBW
 * 1) "...were the oldest type of Carrossier Normand" -- we don't have any intro to what the Carirossier Normand was... may need to add a wee bit of explanation.
 * Added some to the first sentence - better? - DB
 * I'm still fuzzy -- Is the Norman the exact same thing as the Carirossier Normand? If, so maybe saying "also known as" would be better than "or" which could mean the same horse or another kind of horse.  I'm looking for a statement of the obvious, basically - the version that the horse-crazy 10 year old girl will understand.
 * 1) Put some hidden text into some areas where it is unclear which subtype you were talking about
 * Addressed most of it, moved remaining questions below. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

History
OK, I think that does it (I know, it's a lot, sorry!)  Most of these suggestions are things that read awkwardly or are a bit unclear that you'd probably pick up on with another copyedit run on your own, but I know when you've been staring at something too long it's sometimes hard to see how it's reading. The reality that you also did this from a French translation also pops up a bit in a few ways things are worded. While this looks like a lot, it's really just a targeted cleanup, I think, that and some hidden text I popped into the article itself will, I hope, just guide you in your own copyedit. I'm not bound to any particular resolution of these above points, just that they be clarified and smoothed out. The up side is when you're done, you'll be just about ready for FAC! LOL! Montanabw (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What were "husbandry programs?"  If government sponsored, not this.  If a philosophical movement, note that... appears to be a govt thing, but maybe just reword the sentence.
 * Tweaked this a bit. - DB
 * OK--MTBW
 * 1) I do think the second paragraph in this section is a good place to work in the stuff from the first paragraph of the "characteristics" section.
 * Now done. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Awkward and a bit unclear; "Even now, Normandy hosts 20% of the mares of the Selle Français..."  pastures?  owners are there? what...?
 * Changed to "contains" - is that any better? The horses live there... - DB
 * Good enough --MTBW
 * 1) 19th century section a little choppy overall, some things that jumped out at me:
 * These are sort of just hanging there, "According to author Denis Bogros, breeders of Norman horses managed to deceive the French government, through powerful lobbying groups, by selling the military rejects from the breeding programs." and "The French conquest of Algeria brought the Anglo-Norman into competition with the Barb horse" -interesting, but why are either of these things significant?
 * Awkward translation: "This resulted in the military imposing a "revolution" on farmers, who were often unaware of the jobs their horses performed for the military. " Unclear, so is the following sentence, reads kind of choppy
 * 1) Overall, the conflict between the farmers and the military and the carriage horse promoters is a little fuzzy -- farmers implies breeding draft-types, but that isn't mentioned. Just need to clear things up a bit.
 * Did a bit of reworking on these paragraphs. I move the first sentence down to where it fits better with other stuff on military horses. The second sentence was related to the protectionism actions taken in the 1870s, so moved the sentence to that spot. I think I've generally made these paragraphs a bit more clear - let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) " horses from Anglo-Norman bloodlines were clearly identifiable within the Selle Français due to differences in morphology." -- can examples or further explanation be given? Would equine conformation be a better link?
 * Changed link. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) "The idea was realized in August 2008" doesn't sound right, as their movement to amend the studbook failed.  Can you clarify?
 * Changed to "moved forward". It sounds like this is still an ongoing thing. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK--MTBW
 * Cool, I'll work on this stuff later today. I do want to take this article to FAC, so I'm happy to have a thorough review. And it's true about the translation making wording a bit funky (I've even caught myself calling breeds "races" in a couple of spots, because this is how it translates). Dana boomer (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of these I just addressed and tossed - a few I'm still working on. A few I had questions on, so I've left them in and brought discussion here: All for now, more work later. Dana boomer (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments on hidden comments
 * In the Breed characteristics section, you have a hidden comment of "that's 25 years..." Would you mind elaborating?
 * From 1775 until the early 19th century is only 25 years, not very long to be "unrivaled" if the concept intended is that they were the best. I think it's probably awkward wording, or else "unrivaled" is the wrong adjective ("popular" perhaps?) --MTBW
 * No, they were unrivaled before 1775 ("until 1775"), and remained popular through the early 19th century (which early could really refer to anything prior to 1930, so could be up to 50 years). - DB
 * Hence a need to reword -- Um no, the 19th century == 1800-1899, 1930 is in the 20th century ;-)  Just saying...  Also, "unrivaled" probably should be defined or changed to something move direct, it's a vague word do we mean reputation for best quality, fastest, biggest, most numerous...???  --MTBW
 * Sorry, meant to say "1830", which could still be 50 years. The French article says "without rival" - I'm assuming most popular would be the closest. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * History section, "question: any connection between this and the current AQPS?" As far as I know, most of these types were merged into the Selle Francais along with the Anglo-Norman, although I think a few developed into the French Trotter, Norman Cob, etc.
 * Probably nothing to change, though AQPS seems to be something separate from the Selle Français - maybe Tsaag can explain it. May not be anything to add, unless there is a useful explanation out there that's relatively simple. --MTBW
 * Yup, the AQPS is a different "breed", different registry, etc. I plan to work on translating that article (and the French Trotter article, too), which should make this suite of articles pretty solid. AQPS originally had a lot of the same blood, I think, but today are mostly TB - I was reading an article about them the other day and came across a couple quotes by race trainers that say they have both AQPS and TBs in their barns and they can't tell the difference between them. - DB
 * OK.
 * 20th century, "I'd put the bit about the horse that won at the Olympics here instead of above" I think it works best in the Characteristics section, because it contrasts with the previous criticism of the breed.
 * I'd mention the specific horse in 20th century, maybe make the characteristics section more general, perhaps "in spite of cricisicm, they were actually successful as show jumpers, even at the highest levels of competition..." or some such. --MTBW

OK, a lot of the small stuff is much better, I struck what's been addressed, back to you! Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * More questions on hidden comments
 * "do we know when?" (regarding Celts) - French article just says "during their Asiatic migrations", so not real specific.
 * "consider listing these oldest to newest, the Cotentin appears to be the oldest...?)" - I don't have specific dates on any of them, so I've just listed them in the same order as the French article does.
 * "meaning what? 14 hands or 16? vague" - French article only says "mid-sized".
 * I noted that Hendicks gave a height range for one of the early draft types, may want to see if she has anything more to add, though, as usual, she isn't always the ideal source --MTBW
 * More later. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your changes have been on track. I went through and just did a light copyedit of some things, spotted a minor problem with the bit on the Celts and added a source, tagged some other bits with a cn that didn't source to Hendricks (which was cited).  Probably in the other sources, should be a minor problem for you to tweak.  As soon as the hidden text stuff that remains is addressed, I can pass this article, it will probably go to FAC without a need for much more work once we are done here, though a PR from a non-horse editor is always wise.   Montanabw (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

One more. Dana boomer (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More comments on hidden comments
 * "I would put this paragraph first." (Characteristics) - but then it would be out of chronological order and it would basically say "when it was merged, this is what they were like. But if we go back 100 years, this is what they were like." Why not start out with what they were like when the breed was first developed, then go to how it was when the breed was merged into the SF?


 * Which is kind of why a 1-para characteristics section is less awk than having the history stuff split between the two sections - I found it unclear; there were several types that merged to create the breed, then the breed itself seems to have developed different sub-types - ? Somewhere, I got confused, so maybe that's what you want to look at.   Montanabw (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Norman horse had several subtypes, which were merged/crossbred with Thoroughbreds to create the Anglo-Norman, which then developed several subtypes of its own, a couple of which were split off into the French Trotter and Norman Cob, and the remainder of which were bred with more Thoroughbred blood to make a basically homogenous type, which was then combined with other types to create the Selle Francais. I moved what was originally the first paragraph (dealing with the types within the Norman breed) to the history section. Now the Characteristics sections contains one paragraph dealing with the various types that developed in the Anglo-Norman (the first paragraph) and one paragraph dealing with what the breed looked like in the mid-20th century before it was merged into the Selle Francais (the second paragraph). Dana boomer (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the hidden text in the 20th century section on "However, when Anglo-Norman breeders as a whole were asked to vote, they rejected the idea of amending the studbook.", Tsaag says she doesn't know when the vote took place. It was probably in 2012, but she doesn't know for sure. Dana boomer (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this all makes me happy. Stay tuned for me to review and get back to you.  Montanabw (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this for GA, upon reviewing your changes, you've fixed the major stuff. While some of things I have raised here are things I'd like to see fixed before FAC, the article as it sits clearly exceeds GA criteria. Nice work! Montanabw (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the delayed response) Thanks for the review and pass! If you have time, could you maybe drop a note on the talk page with what you'd still like to see addressed? The above discussion got a bit confusing and fragmented, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)