Talk:Italian Heavy Draft/GA1

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

Reviewer: BencherliteTalk 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about horses, so this should be fun... BencherliteTalk 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Prose / content / sources
 * "The Italian Heavy Draft, or Rapid Heavy Draft, is an Italian draft horse". OK, spot the obvious horse-article-noob-reader question, but is it called the Italian Heavy Draft because it is only found in Italy, or because was it first developed in Italy (but is now used more widely), or something else?  Reading through deeper into the article, I get the impression it's because it was first bred in Italy, but it's not clear from the off.  I've tried (below) a new version of the lead to answer some of my points, incidentally.
 * Inserted your proposed version of the lead, with a few tweaks to removing overuse of "breed". Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You tell us in the lead and infobox that it's also known as the Rapid Heavy Draft, but don't come back to this in the article itself. Where / why?
 * I'm assuming this name developed from their speed, which is rather unusual for a heavy draft horse. However, no source that I've found that actually says this. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Any possible synonyms for "developed" or "breeding", both of which are used quite a few times in the lead? Same thing with "breed" in the "history" section.
 * Removed quite a few of these, should I do more? Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "the Haflinger, developed in the same region": which region?
 * Done. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "breed standards": what are they, and who sets them?
 * Breed standards are conformation, color, etc. standards set by the breed registry. I think I have clarified this in the proper location. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who brands them (i.e. which organisation)? Do we know why that particular symbol?
 * I think it's just the owner/farmer that brands them, probably at a communal meeting/inspection. The registry declares which horses get to have the brand, though. I didn't find anything describing why that particular symbol is used. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This may be a horsey way of speaking of which I know nothing, but I get the impression that IHD is used in different ways in different parts of the article, although my tired brain is struggling to explain the grammatical point I'm trying to make. E.g. "The Italian Heavy Draft generally stands between..." feels different from "The Italian Heavy Draft was begun in 1860"; or perhaps the latter sentence can be reworded, as all three sections begin with the same words (as does the lead).
 * I've reworded the first sentence of the history section to vary things a bit. Hopefully it helped. The term "Italian Heavy Draft" should be used the same way throughout the article - to refer to the breed of horse. However, my prose is not always "brilliant", so what I want to say and what is actually in the article are sometimes two different things :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Two dab links in the history section: Brabant and Boulonnais
 * Done. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Despite their early popularity as a strong but fast draft horse, increasing mechanization [etc]" - I don't think the "their" of the first phrase fits up with the subject of the main part of the sentence. "Dangling modifier" I think I heard someone say at FAC once...
 * I think I fixed this. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Minor point, but in the lead you have a comma after 1970s, but not in the main text. In fact sometimes you have a comma ("In 1926," "In 2005,") but not always ("In the 1970s" "In 1976").
 * All standardized, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Italian Heavy Draft was originally bred to be a versatile breed " - any chance of an alternative word choice to avoid the repetition?
 * Fixed, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "It is still used for farming in a few areas where mechanization is not practical and the mares are also still used for the production of mules, although its main breeding purpose today is the production of horse meat" - the subject of the sentence goes from "it [=breed]" to "mares" back to "it" again; by the time we're back to "it", it's a little confusing.
 * This was split into two sentences. Better? Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Italy is one of the top consumers of horse meat" - in Europe? In the world? I suspect the latter is implied, but I'm not certain.
 * Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 1: is "p entry 108" right?
 * This is an annoying quirk of the cite book template. The Bongianni book doesn't have pages (none are listed), it has "entries" (generally two entries per page, but this varies). So, I can't put a specific page number, but as far as I know, I also can't get it to not add the "p." to the resulting reference. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources look appropriate and reliable; can't access the books (well, I can get to part of one on Google Books, but not the relevant part) but they exist, which is a start! No signs of original research or inappropriate copying from references, to the extent that it's possible to judge such things from limited access to the sources.


 * Other (non-)issues
 * No broken external links
 * One image, on Commons with prima facie valid licensing
 * Written from a NPOV
 * Article is stable
 * Article is sufficiently broad in coverage

So, where does that leave us? I think the answer is that if you can either address the issues raised above, or patiently explain to me why I'm missing the point (as the case may be) then it's a GA. On hold for the traditional period, therefore.

I've tried a rewrite of the lead to try and address my own points; feel free to accept, reject or alter:
 * The Italian Heavy Draft, or Rapid Heavy Draft, is an draft horse from Italy, where it was first bred in 1860. Generally chestnut in color, the breed is known for its combination of strength and speed. It was developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from a mix of native Italian stock and imported breeds, mainly draft horses. Its versatility has led to its use in both agricultural and military capacities, as well as for the production of mules. In 1926, a stud book was formed for the breed, and population numbers continued to rise until the advent of World War II. Breeding programs suffered during the war, and despite care afterward, population numbers continued to dwindle as increasing mechanization decreased the need for draft horses. In the 1970s, selective breeding goals were changed to produce a horse suitable for meat production, which remains the primary use of the breed.

BencherliteTalk 22:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Bencherlite, and thanks for the review. I was going to get started on these last night, but then Malleus and Montana were editing and I didn't want to ec with them. I'll work through these tonight when I get off work, but wanted to let you know that I have seen the comments. Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've been in court all day, I'm travelling this evening, then I'm in court all day tomorrow and travelling all evening again - then it's the weekend, when {{u|WifeofBencherlite]} and  get first call on me... so don't expect much from me in reply very quickly. BencherliteTalk 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have replied to all of your points above. No problem if you don't get back to this until next week - I completely understand the real life "excuse"! Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your clarifications and Malleus's prose tweaks combined have cleared everything up. I've fixed your cite book problem (the answer is to add "|nopp=yes" to the parameters) and added one more category.  All is well, so GA pass it is. BencherliteTalk 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I had little to do with this particular article, but Dana and I have paired on a number of WPEQ breed articles. I can reassure you that she accesses Bongianni, Hendricks, and Edwards for us on a regular basis because I don't have them. From her other work with sources I do have access to I can reassure you that she does a good job of neither straying too far from the source material nor does she plagiarize! We had to deal with tons of OR while cleaning up multiple other articles for the horse breeds task force, so no worries there, either! Looks like all the other stuff is structural, so I'll let Dana address those issues. But just wanting to offer some support here. Montanabw (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no doubts at all in my mind that Db is a responsible editor who knows the difference between reliance on and copying from sources, and who knows where the gap is between sources and OR. I was just leaving a marker for anyone who reads the review in future, so that they could see the extent to which I had been able to check the sources for myself. BencherliteTalk 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)