Talk:Clydesdale horse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa   (talk)  21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I will give the article a read through shortly and place any queries below. Miyagawa  (talk)  21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * History: Is there a reference for the first recorded use of the name Clydesdale?
 * Done. This was originally referenced, but got separated from it's source somehow. Dana boomer (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of summarising the system of hiring stallions in a single line? If its more complicated than that, then leave it as it is as we don't want to drag the article off topic - but I think that a quick explanation would help the reader's understanding of how the horse spread.
 * I played with this a little, went to the sources and looked to see if we could clarify it any. Absent looking into new sources on the district system, I think we're at a dead end there.   Montanabw (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a source specifically on this hiring system, and think I did a relatively good job of summarizing the practice in two sentences. Feel free to tweak, though. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * References: Ref #7 - if The Draft Horse Journal comes in physical copies then it needs to be in italics.
 * Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick look for other available sources and found one below you might find useful: Heavy horses; breeds and management (1894) - has about 50 pages on the Clydesdale, from page 75 onwards. It presents an alternative origin during the 15th century, although does state that the 18th century origin is more likely. It's got some interesting information regarding the early Clydesdale of the 18th century and you might want to have a look to see if there is anything that is useful to the article. Online version of the Hayes general reference


 * Comment-- This looks like a fun source! (May have WP:PRIMARY problems (?), but definitely has potential to clear up or back up some of our other material) I took a look at the first pages on the origins question (I'm home on the dialup, it's loading s-l-o-w-l-y) and it looks to me like it's the usual thing we run across in the European breed articles...essentially, that people used imported animals to create new types, but  breeding for a "breed" per se didn't get solidified and systematized until the 18th or 19th centuries. Though the author does mention on page 75 that Flemish horses had been imported to Scotland at least by the 15th century (in the time of the Stuart monarchs), but the author goes onto page 76 to explain that these animals would have been used for different goals, war, draught, etc., depending on the needs of the given time, and concludes, "...we may safely conclude that the eighteenth century importation of Flemish stallions, if it can be established, has a much more important bearing on our present inquiry."  . It reads to me that they basically only got serious about breeding for a tall draft type in the late 18th-early 19th centuries. Within WPEQ generally we've actually been having a discussion of how far back to start with various breeds' ancient ancestry in several articles (in one case, we're debating the Stone Age!).  We can sometimes note that such-and-such a horse was probably an ancestor, but absent really good sources of DNA or some other very solid proof of straight-line progression from an ancient form to a modernonw, all we can really say and stay within WP:V is that written records and pedigrees were kept since date XYZ.  Montanabw (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, I suffer from the same issues with Dog Breeds, especially where the origins arn't clear but similar dogs have been around since whatever century. Miyagawa   (talk)  18:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Hayes link is to a different edition of the book (3rd vs. 7th revised), and I believe it changed quite a bit in the intervening 70 years, so I'm not going to link to it at this time. I'm currently looking through the other ref for anything that can be added into the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, hadn't realised it was a different edition (I thought it was the same year). Miyagawa   (talk)  11:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've paged through the source you provided. It makes good reading for someone really interested in the early history of the Clydesdale breed. However, being written in the late 19th century severely curtails its usefulness. Over the past century, advances have been made in the study of many breeds, especially well known ones like the Clydesdale. When I take this article to FAC (and I plan to, although it's not at the top of the list), I plan to use several books that have been written on the Clydesdale within the past 20-30 years (which I will need to go through ILL for), as they have a much more up-to-date understanding of all aspects of the breed's history. After I include the information from those books, I will go back through this reference to see if there is anything that this book can then be used to back up or clarify that meshes with the views of more modern scholars on the topic. This being said, I have included a brief mention of the alternate origin theory, although I have made it clear (I think!) that it is a very unlikely possibility. If there are any specific areas that you would like me to use the book in (any areas of the text that were unclear?), please point those out so I can study them in more detail. At this point, IMO, the article satisfies the "broadness" criteria required of good articles, although it's most likely a bit shy of the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. However, you may disagree with me... Anyway, those are my (rather lengthy) thoughts on the matter :) Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's alright, I just wanted you to have a look to see if there was anything useful you could use in the article. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Looks very nearly there, can't find any issues with the prose and references all look good. Miyagawa  (talk)  22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Miyagawa, most of your sourcing questions will have to be answered by Dana, but I'm curious to have you expand on the concerns with the areas where you put a  -- were the concerns you raised above the only things that triggered those assessments, or are there some additional things you'd like us to look at? I'll peek at your source, and I'm sure Dana will also, thanks for finding it! Montanabw (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, that was just me missing a tag. Fixed it now. Miyagawa   (talk)  18:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Article meets the criteria for GA. Good job. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)