Talk:Equus (genus)/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I think I have sufficient experience with horses now to review this one... FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Horses only returned to the Americas with the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1493." Needs a source.
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * End of first paragraph under ecology needs a source.
 * This is well known fact. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I know, any statement needs a source on Wikipedia, however obvious it may seem. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "The term equine refers to any member of this genus, including horses." That is the common language definition that only refers to extant species, but technically, it also refers to everything within the equinae. Like how canine commonly refers to dogs, but actually refers to all of caninae.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of words linked twice in the lead.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Equus ferus ferus Tarpan (historically extinct)" What does "historically extinct" mean? A date would be better.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Likewise, there is quite some inconsistency in that taxon list, some places distribution info is mentioned, some have alternate names, some have scientific authority etc. Should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Side comment: I've been in the background on this article because I am neither a taxonomist nor a palentologist.  But I may pop in here a wee bit with a couple comments that Little Jerry or Funk Monk may want to factor in.  A few for now:
 * 1) An earlier version of the article contained the alternative names for several subspecies, they got deleted (I think by an anon IP) and I think this article would be stronger if they were restored.
 * See FunkMonk's last task above. LittleJerry (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The Pzrewalski horse in the composite lead photo is mislabled as e. ferus when actually ALL horses (at least all extant ones are e. ferus ________ i.e. Equus ferus caballus, Equus ferus Pzrewalski and so on. The Tarpan is e. ferus ferus''. This was a huge editing discussion when we took horse to GA and we had one of the taxonomy experts (sadly, now retired) review all this.
 * 2) I whined a little bit about this at article talk, but the very cool composite photo leading this article also has three different zebra photos but not a single one of a domestic horse. The Przewalski is NOT the wild ancestor of the modern domestic horse.  Montanabw (talk)  07:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I originally labelled it the wild horse of which the Pzrewalski and domestic horse are both subspecies. The Pzrewalski photo represented the species. I can't represent every subspecies in the montage. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed montage. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're of course always welcome to chime in, Montana. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Now some of the common names are capitalised, should be consistent.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happier now. I only am at the evolution section where I clarified some stuff that  may want to review, as I added some sources.  I also added a bit on the digestion stuff, as I was the creator of the utterly fascinating article hindgut fermentation (lol). Hope it helped, but I won't be deeply wounded if something gets tossed. I'm not considering myself a reviewer here as I contributed to this article from time to time, only a second eye for both reviewer and lead editor.   Montanabw (talk)  21:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "The word comes from Latin equus, "horse"," The word is Equus (it doesn't "come from" it), so it would probably make more sense to write "The word Equus is the Latin word for "horse"."
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is the only recognized extant genus in the family Equidae." The article seems incomplete without some mention of the various subgenera that the extant genera are placed in.
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You mention three stages of equid evolution, maybe mention some exemplary genera in parenthesis?
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "traditionally referred to as Hippidion, originally believed to be descended from Pliohippus, was shown to be a third species in the genus Equus" That is an over interpretation, the paper simply states the status of Hippidion is unresolved and needs further evaluation.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe better to remove the part about Hippidion entirely, doesn't add much,and I'm sure there are other similar cases that have been arbitrarily left out. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit odd that there is no list of fossil species as well. I know that would be a long list, but being a genus article, not a higher level with much more content, I think it would be appropriate.
 * It was there, but I figured it would be a problem since most species were red and uncited. Plus it gave the article a dry look. LittleJerry (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say I don't like to see important information like that go, maybe you can include it, hidden in the taxobox, see for example what I did here to prevent a huge list: Paraceratherium FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Equines may be medium to large in size" This means little without some numbers. You could give the height of the smallest and largest species, for example.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "As odd-toed ungulates, their slender legs support their weight on one digit" Supporting weight on one toe is what makes them unique within odd toed ungulates, this sentence makes it seem as if it is a trait for odd toed ungulates in general.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "The other species tend to occupy more arid environments with more scattered vegetation." What other species? Zebras? Horse?
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "They regularly rub against trees, rocks and other objects and roll in around in dust." Why?
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Ecology and activates" What is meant? Activities?
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Some places you write "mountains zebras", other places "mountain zebras", should be consistent.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A picture of juveniles or mating would make more sense under Reproduction and parenting.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "and the stallion will attack predators that come too close." How?
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Evans Horse Breeding and Management p.56" What is this publication?
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Two subspecies, the quagga and the tarpan, became extinct in recent history." This would make more sense after the first couple of sentences in the paragraph, and does need a source, though it seems obvious.
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Thus, it is debated if the tarpan is identical to the original wild ancestor or an independent subspecies that may have interbred at times with some caballus populations during the domestication process." Needs a source.
 * Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have been called to swing by and help, though I notice that there have been extensive changes since I last popped by. So, right now, what's left?  By the way, some material can probably find sources at horse (already a GA) and horse behavior. FWIW, my expertise is confined to the caballene subspecies and, to a lesser extent, domestic donkeys.  I don't know didlly-squat about zebras, so you guys are on your own there.   Montanabw (talk)  01:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please add in information on the conservation/management issues of feral horses in the conservation subsection? LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "This article deals primarily with the seven extant species." I've never seen a "disclaimer" like this in nay other promoted article, is it really necessary? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have much more to add, the lead seems a bit short, but I guess it's ok. But I'll wait and see if Montana has more to add after next reading. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Something's wrong with ref 56. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bracket typo. Fixed it. Not sure what to do about the lead, LittleJerry probably should do some expansion out to about three paras given the article length, I can help copyedit some.  Montanabw (talk)  04:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? I won't have much time for wiki soon, so I'd rather give this done with soon. LittleJerry (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If Funk Monk is OK with it as is, I'm not going to raise a stink either, I'm not particularly motivated about it.   But if it were "my" article, I'd expand it out to about three paragraphs, or at least make the two there a bit more comprehensive as summaries, for example add a sentence or so on evolution,  clarify the "medium or large" size thing now that we did so in the body text, add a touch on hybrids and maybe a few words on feral animals, and a bit more on the biology section (a touch from sections 3.3, 3.4, & 3.5).  When I do a GA review, I usually like to see each topic in the TOC at least lightly touched upon in the lead unless the article is totally huge...   Montanabw (talk)  05:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, the intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article after all. Any suggestions for the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added some more sentences to make the lede more reflective of the body. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright. I will pass this. But if there are more remarks, just place them under here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)