Talk:Horse/Archive 5

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 [|these 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 ++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)


 * 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.
 * 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)