Talk:Sorraia/GA1

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

I was not a major contributor to this article, though I was a major commenter on the talk page while discussing the cleanup. So while I cannot actually do the GA eval here due to COI, I want to just say that this nomination has my support. There has been a lot of excellent work done here, and a great collaboration between a new editor with subject area expertise, and a more experienced one. Montanabw (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer's comments
Hi all,

So I'm going to start out by saying that this is my first WP review. There are plenty of good examples of reviews out there which I am going to have to rely, but it should be noted that many of the contributors to this article have considerably more experience in reviewing than I do. If you feel this affects the quality of the review, please post your views and ask for a 2nd opinion; I won't be offended.

-

This article is about a rare breed of Horse called the Sorraia. The article includes a brief description of the characteristics of the breed, its history, conservation efforts, and its relationship with other breeds. The tone of the article is appropriate, NPOV and encyclopedic. This article is clearly an appropriate candidate to be a WP:GA, but I have some concerns, primarily about the flow of the article.

For instance, the history section seems to include a wide range of information: prehistoric history, the initial "discovery" of the breed, current conservation efforts, stud books, etc. The section sometimes jumps between topics without a good flow. Why is the studbook information included? How does it relate to the previous paragraph, or the section as a whole? I'm going to post a list of specific issues, but very generally I would make the following suggestion: restructure the article to include the following sections: Introduction, Characteristics, History and evolution, Conservation efforts; those seem to me to be the central issues, but they are somewhat distributed throughout the existing sections. I'll post specifics when I complete my list. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Typos and minor clarifications
Actually according to the summary on page 25 of the ref. the Authoirse state in The paragraph Starting "Because of its low variability..." They specifically state the opinion that the Sorraia is a ancestor to the saddlehorses.--Kevmin (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 1✅ Technically, should the first sentence read that the Sorraia is a breed of horse? Perhaps "breed of horse indigenous to a region in modern day Portugal"?
 * Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 2 Should the first sentence of "History" read "including the ancestors of the Sorraia"? If so, do we know anything about the ancestors?
 * Removed. Basically, what we know about the ancestors is given - they probably diverged from the Tarpan at some point after the Pleistocene era. Because cave people didn't exactly keep written records of the horses they saw (and ate), we don't really know anything more than what cave drawings tell us, and that's very little. This breed is a hard one to find info on, as well, because they were wild for so long - the peasant farmers may have taken some to use for centuries, but didn't really care where they came from or care about keeping records of how the horses developed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the History section still begin in the Pleistocene? According to the Luis et al ref (see phylogenetic tree in fig 1 on page 24), the Sorraia clearly had a domestic ancestor among the Spanish horse breeds.  The history of domestic Equus caballus begins circa 4500 BC, not in the Pleistocene.  Also according to the phylogenetic tree, the Sorraia is not an ancestor of Spanish Colonial horses, but rather a horse that got left behind on the Iberian peninsula;  Sorraia plus Andalusian and Lusitano together form a sister group to the Spanish Colonial breeds. --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, could you please be more specific about which ref you're refering to? There are four Luis, et.al. references and none of them are 24 pages long, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but the sources I have read tell me that there is not a "clear ancestor" of the Sorraia among the other Spanish horse breeds. Also, mtDNA testing does tell us that they are a distant ancestor of some wild mustangs (although not all of today's so called "Spanish Colonial" horses). As you can see from the "Relationship" section, the Sorraia has a fairly complicated and still somewhat unknown relationship with other Iberian breeds - one that scientists are still working to completely uncover. Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una means ref [16], which has 8 pages, 20-27. But the text of the section seems to contradict her statement: "All the South American breeds belong to a group that also clusters with the Iberian Andalusian, Lusitano and Sorraia breeds (Fig. 1h)... Indeed the Sorraia is considered a primitive horse and is believed to be the primary ancestor of the Iberian horses and therefore an ancestor of light and saddle horses." Am I failing to catch a subtle difference here?
 * That text in the article (p. 25, left col, middle) is followed directly by This theory... Apparently someone is promoting a grand "ancestor horse" theory for this breed, but it is so beyond the pale that Luis et al don't say who.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean  What I said about a sister group is consistent with the article, both figures and text.  Taken together, the Iberian peninsula horses and the Spanish Colonial horses form a clade.  However, within that clade the Iberian peninsula horses and Spanish Colonial horses are each other's sister groups.  To me, it is apparent that far more sampling is needed in the Old World, before any reliable statements can be made about the history of these breeds prior to the 16th Century.  Again, at this time the article greatly over-interprets the available reliable sources (and when it comes to phylogeny, breed afficionado websites generally are not reliable sources).  --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be someone else's opinion, not their own: This theory has not been proven.  They go on to mention new results consistent with Sorraia being closely related to other Iberian breeds.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair, Una. I'm quite familiar with mtDNA analyses and how unreliable they can be, and how authors can push their interpretations a bit too far. See the origins section of Dog for some of my recent edits on the topic. That said, that seems to be the only major sticking point for this article. In order to justify substantial changes to the article, or to challenge the GA nomination, I think we would need a referenced study that calls these findings/interpretations into question. As is, although valid, your concerns appear to be WP:OR. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(This issue isn't a minor one, but anyway...) I rewrote the lead to (I hope) say what other editors intend it to say, yet be acceptable to me:

I suggest deleting the sentence about being hardy: that isn't especially notable and removing the sentence would permit swapping parts of the adjacent sentences for better flow. Like this:

Selona may have something to add re other primitive traits the breed is known for. Does this work for everyone? --Una Smith (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue 3✅ The second sentence of 20th century and today is grammatically complex and could be easily simplified.
 * Reworded, see what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 4✅ When it is said that "the breeding stock diminished to almost nothing," does that mean in the wild, or the subset that were captured by peasant farmers?
 * Both. Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 5✅ Is the Food and Agriculture Organization the body that evaluates risk status? Why not the IUCN?
 * The Food and Agriculture Organization is one of the bodies that evaluates risk status. There are others, but they are mainly regional (US, UK), so do not include breeds that are mainly European. The IUCN evaluates animals by species, not individual breed. Therefore, the various species of equus africanus, equus ferus, equus grevyi are listed, but not individual breeds of equus caballus. Actually, as far as I can find, equus caballus is not even on the list, probably because there are a few gazillion of them in the world as an entire species, even if there are only a few of some individual breeds left. So basically, organizations such as the FAO and the various US/UK organizations evaluate by individual breed, the IUCN evaluates by species.


 * Issue 6 Could taxonomic information be included? I'm not well versed in the biology of horses, so I was left wondering what species this belonged to. I now know that implicit in being a breed of horse, Sorraia are a breed of Equus caballus, but perhaps this could be explicit?
 * This one I'm not too sure about. As you said, being a horse automatically means they are equus caballus. Making this explicit has not been needed in other horse breeds GAs and FAs (see Haflinger (horse), Suffolk Punch, Thoroughbred, Banker horse). I guess we figure that if people really want to know about the biology of a horse, they can go to the main horse article. This is because the basic biology of a horse, any horse, is the same. Reproductively, you can cross any breed with any other breed and get an offspring that is, although crossbred, not hybrid (or sterile, as many hybrids are). We give the ways that individual breeds differ from others in the characteristics section, but basically, biologically-wise, they are all the same. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Thesoxlost's point. How about in the lead say this:


 * Even if the breed is descended from tarpans, it is the same species as Equus caballus because there is no breeding barrier between the breed and other horses. --Una Smith (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue 7 The Pleistocene era was an extraordinarily long time. Is there any more information about the origin of this breed? The reference provided states that Equus evolved during the beginning of this period, but there is no statement as to the divergence of the breed Sorraia.
 * Not really anymore information. See my response under your second point above for more details. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of the breed starts with the breed's "discovery" in 1920; the rest of the back story is a theory.  An interesting theory, and the story of its construction is interesting too, but this article presents the theory as established fact, which it is not.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why the article doesn't say directly "the Sorraia is depicted in cave art". It says "horses with a likeness to the Sorraia are depicted in cave art". This difference tells readers that it is probable that the Sorraia was in some way related to these horses, but doesn't present it as absolute fact, and is all backed up with good sources. After the 1920's, yes, that is more solid fact, which is why it is presented as such "the Sorraia were found", "the Sorraia were conserved" etc. Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the most that can be said is these horses are duns and that dun was an equine coat color documented in prehistoric cave art. It is not appropriate to say (or imply) that because the breed is dun therefore it is a descendant of Equus ferus rather than Equus caballus.  Many horse breeds have this coat color.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 8✅ The central message of reference [8] is that the Sorraia show evidence of genetic bottlenecking. Is this information relevant to the conservation effort? The article states that the species was recovered from 5 males and 7 females (!!) The article states this, but doesn't emphasize that the current members of the species all descended from these individuals.
 * I think I made this more obvious. Check and see if you agree. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the flow, I suppose instead my own solution, I should just highlight the aspects of the section that I found confusing. Those are as follows: Relating to flow & structure
 * Issue 9 The "relationship to other breeds" section seems critical to the article, and perhaps should be emphasized. Otherwise, the reader has little understanding of how the breed falls into the larger context. Would it be reasonable to integrate this information with the first paragraph of History to create an Origins section? That could result in removing a subsection, instead of creating more small sections.
 * How about moving the "Relationship" section to in between the Characteristics and History sections? I understand your point about it needing to be emphasized; however, I don't really want to integrate it into the History section because it covers their relationship with other breeds in the past as well as discussing current research, so it doesn't really fit well into any particular spot in the History section. We originally started with the current Relationship section split up among various spots in the Characteristics and History sections, but ended up integrating it because we found that we were having too much reptition each time we re-picked-up the thread of the relationship information. (If that makes sense at all!) Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the Relationship section up. I hope this works for you. If not, please let me know what you would like done differently. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 10✅ The article states that Sorraia horses were brought to the new world during the early period of colonization, but then it states that the breed was discovered by a zoologist in 1920. I assume that the species gradually decreased in number, and was lost to science until 1920?  This is a big jump for the reader and could use a bridge.
 * Adding a bridge sentence, see if it works for you. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 11✅ So the mechanization period during which the breed diminished was prior to 1920? or between 1920 and 1937?
 * 1920s and 1930s. Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 12✅ Do any wild Sorraia still exist? If not, at what point did they disappear?
 * None of the sources I've been able to find say anything about wild Sorraia's still existing, but they also don't say anything about them disappearing. My assumption (which I can't back up with sources, so can't add to the article) is that the horses d'Andrade captured were probably some of the last, and the rest of the truely wild horses slowly died out after that. However, due to the still-inaccessible nature of much of that area of Portugal, there may still be small bands of wild horses out there that have become wily enough to hide themselves from human interaction. However, like I said, all of this is original research and assumption, and not at all backed up by a source that says "the wild horses are gone" or "there are still small bands of them out there". Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Luis reference, which states that the breed experienced a bottleneck and is now descended from 12 individuals strongly implies that he believes the only living Sorraia to be in captivity. I don't think it would be considered original research for you to put in a conservative statement to that effect. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, I've added a sentence to this effect. Let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue 13✅ The Naming section may contradict the History section? Conquistadors brought the "Sorraia type" over to the new world, but at the time they were called something different? So the animals that were brought over are a closer match to the present day Sorraia than to the Marismeño?
 * I see your point, but I'm not sure how to correct it. In the 1400s and 1500s the Sorraia and the Marismeno were the same thing. However, the name "Marismeno" got basically transferred to another group of primitive horses that had diverged from the Sorraia. The Spanish conquistadors pack horses probably included horses of what was eventually two groups, but at the time they were all one thing. I know that's confusing, but I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, would it be reasonable to say either (1) that the conquistadors brought over the Iberian-type (not Sorraia type), which has since diverged into a number of different breeds. The Sorraia, because of its isolation, appears to have remained closest to that 17th century type; or (2) that the conquistadors brought over the Sorraia-type, which has since diverged into a number of different breeds. The Sorraia has remained very close to the original type, and is considered the ancestor for these Iberian breeds.
 * It seems to me that the references provided would support either statement. (1) is slightly more conservative. But emphasizing in History that either the breeds brought over by the conquistadors were of the same type as Sorraia, or emphasising in Relationships that the Sorraia is not only related to these breeds, but thought to be their ancestor, may clear up the confusion.--Thesoxlost (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some rewording in the conquistadors section to make it closer to (1). Although the Sorraia was thought for many years to be a main ancestor of other Iberian breeds (Lusitano, Andalusian, etc), this was cast in doubt by more recent studies. However, even more recent studies seem to say that it is possible that the Sorraia is one of several ancestors of the Lusitano breed. Basically, the scientists are still working it out through some very complicated genetics studies that I don't really understand :) That is why we stuck with the rather conservative "related to, and still studying" when showing their relationship to other Iberian breeds in the Relationship section. I hope this works better for you. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship concerns
--Thesoxlost (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 14✅ Lastly, a new point: inferring relationships from physical characteristics (such as the Tarpan) is pretty dangerous. There are many breeds of dogs, for instance, that were believed to be ancient, but in fact diverged far more recently than originally thought.  Considering that it is believed that humans did not interfere with the development of this breed, I suppose this concern is minimized, but it nonetheless raised a warning flag for me.


 * I think this sentence is what Una is objecting to. Could it be changed to emphasize that the age of the breed is not being based on morphological similarity to a Tarpans? Perhaps a very brief list of animals that share the coloration (I doubt it is just Tarpans and Sorraia), that hints at a possible age for Sorraia as a breed, and then reinforce that hint with the genetic tests?--Thesoxlost (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's basically being said is that they show characteristics that resemble many other breeds that are known to be very ancient and were mainly left in their wild state by humans. These include the Konik (a primitive Polish breed), the Heck horse (a breed that was created in an attempt to back-breed the extinct Tarpan), the Przewalski's Horse (the last true wild horse). The main characteristics are in coloring - primitive markings are "a group of hair coat markings and qualities associated with primitive breeds" (to quote the WP article that is well written and well source by our horse color gene expert). Dun coloring is also associated with primitive breeds. I know this is a long explanation, but I'm not sure how else to say it. What if I reworded the sentence something like "The Sorraia is a breed with ancient origins, and resembles the extinct Tarpan."? Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that would resolve the problem by removing the word "making" from the sentence. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, rewording done. Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Thesoxlost, and thanks for taking on the review of this article! It is always good to see new people getting involved in the reviewing process, and I promise to try to not scare you away :)


 * As to your comments above - I have done a bit of restructuring in the history section that has hopefully helped the flow, as well as adding some wording that should explain things better. I don't really want to add in more section headers, as I feel that too many short sections make an article feel very choppy and actually makes it harder to read, and there are already quite a few short sections in the article. However, as I said, I did some restructuring that I think put things into more coherent paragraphs, and made the chronology flow better. I look forward to the remainder of your review, and hope I've improved things slightly, at least! Dana boomer (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My replies are interspersed above. I agreed with several of your points and made several adjustments to the article. There are other points that I have questions on, can't answer, or flat out disagree with :) Thanks again for the work you are putting into this review. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments by Una Smith
I stumbled on this GA review by chance; I have been cleaning up a lot of horse breed articles. I think the references re the reconstructed history of the breed have been misinterpreted, and I suggest that some Wikiprojects other than WPEQ be asked to cast their eyes over this article. --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have misinterpreted sources, and neither do the other two editors who worked on this article. If other people would like to comment on this article, they are more than welcome to - it is, however, hard to get people interested in a subject this specialized (hence why it waited almost a month simply for a GA review). I have explained above my reasons for wording things a certain way, and if you care to wade through the 125 kb of discussion on the talk page, you are welcome to see where those sources came from and how the article has developed over the past few months. Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, could you be more specific about (1) what you feel is being misrepresented; and (2) which projects this page should be added to and reviewed by. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue 15Thesoxlost, as you said, grand extrapolations from superficial resemblances are highly suspect. Here the extrapolation is:  Sorraia dun, Tarpan dun, ergo Sorraia a member of  Equus ferus ferus not Equus caballus.  If true, that would be stunning.  However, the reliable sources cited in this article are clear that the Sorraia is a feral horse breed (hence a member of Equus caballus) that happens to have what may be a primitive coat color.  I would ask WikiProject Mammals for help.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Una, I don't see that extrapolation in this article. I'd go so far as to say that your characterization is unfair. I think the extrapolation is: Sorraia dun, therefore Sorraia ancient, but then it is backed up by references and genetic studies. I do agree the Tarpan sentence should be changed; I changed my suggestion above. Please feel free to add this page to the Mammals wikiproject, and solicit another opinion.--Thesoxlost (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue 16Setting aside the reference to Tarpan, the extrapolation indeed is Sorraia dun, therefore Sorraia ancient but that is a fallacy. The dun phenotype may be primitive in any breed, but possession of a primitive phenotype does not make a breed ancient.  Antiquity of a breed is demonstrated by evidence of an ancient historical record, a stud book, which this breed lacks.  As a landrace, the Sorraia may be old; that would be demonstrated by a historical record of use.  The article claims the landrace is hundreds of year old in the lead: Members of the breed were occasionally captured and used by native farmers for centuries but that particular detail is not directly supported in the body of the article. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bluptr's Comments

 * Issue 17 I feel that the lead and the introduction line has to be improved." The Sorraia is a horse breed native to southern Portugal that is known for its coloring: always dun or grullo (a variant of dun) with primitive markings. The breed was founded in the 1920's to recreate (at least in appearance) a then vanishing and now extinct landrace of feral horses in southern Portugal." The first sentence can be made more concise, something like, ".... is a horse breed native to southern Portugal, known for its dun coloring.". We can mention the specific details on grullo in the article later, since it is a variant of dun. Also its better to avoid editorial comments like "at least in apperance", which sounds like a original research. Try to keep the intro small and concise without editorial comments.


 * Issue 18 "...from several countries forming projects and herds to assist...", do you mean groups or organization here, because I feel herds is a crude word and we cannot apply "herds" to human beings. Or if you are referring to the animal, then instead of "herds", sanctuary is a better word. Pls look into it.

Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead that you were reading was a version inserted by Una Smith that had no consensus from other editors. It has been reverted, so please re-read and see what you think. As for your second point, I agree that was badly worded. I have changed it to "forming projects and establishing herds". Does this make it better? Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Dana, thanks for the changes, it reads better now. I am not sure if "sanctuary" or "establishing herds" which of these is better. Pls take the opinion of other editors on this. But the lead is better now. --Bluptr (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pending criticisms
Una Smith has made 10 points that she feels need to be addressed in considering the GA nomination of the Sorraia article. The first was that a major contributor to the talk page, Selona, had made suggestions that were not included in the article. A thorough reading of the talk page indicates that this is not the case. It is clear from the history that the major contributors to the Sorraia article worked closely with Selona. Given that Selona herself made few edits of her own, it is my opinion that the primary contributors to this page went well out of their way to ensure that the information they included in the page was consistent with Selona's account.

I was intending to let Smith post her own criticism without comment, but her tone has been rude and toxic. For instance, the term "nonsense" means that a statement is devoid of meaning. In the context of a GAN review, the term is inappropriate and inflammatory. Given this verbiage, some of her criticisms (such as about the contributions of Selon) could lead one to suspect that she is not providing an unbiased review of this article. I'd urge Smith to ensure that she is not misinterpreted in this way.

Of the nine remaining points, I think one is an important point that I had previously missed completely: her first point in section "Una Smith's concerns" is clearly valid: the link to Tarpan does not appear to be appropriate here. I'll let the primary contributors to this page respond to the rest of these criticisms, but want to note that I disagree with the bulk of them. --Thesoxlost (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Following this post, I have been looking for past history between the editors. It seems pretty clear that Una Smith has had a long-standing poor working relationship with some of the major contributors to this article . On previous reviews, her objectivity has been questioned, and it was suggested that she should not be involved in reviewing articles proposed by the major contributors to this article. Before learning any of this I questioned her objectivity; knowing this, I feel that it would be appropriate for her to voluntarily remove herself from this review process. --Thesoxlost (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a neutral person I would say that while Una's comments are a little pointed but I also think that the recation to the tone is much greater then it should be. The reference to "Una in a huff" can just as easily misconstrued. This by no means is a valid reason to dismiss her concerns outright. I would be interested i n responses to the objections.--Kevmin (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A fundamental goal of Wikipedia is the production of articles that have a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Excluding editors from the GA review process because they disagree with nominating editors is contrary to that goal.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: I wasn't suggesting we dismiss her concerns outright; I think one of them was good, and a couple others could be seen as reasonable. I think the contributors to this page should respond to each of them.  And I wasn't suggesting that Una remove herself from the discussion because of her tone here, but because there has been past debate about precisely this issue. Check out her talk page to see what I mean. Further, I'm not accusing her of WP:NPOV content; it simply that she has had a long standing conflict with these editors which have repeatedly led to administrative involvement.  But I'm not interested in pushing this; I was just voicing my opinion. (p.s., Yes, "in a huff" should have been reworded).
 * I was (and still am, to a lesser extent) worried about the direction this review was going. GA reviews should not be a battleground for editors that have long-standing gripes with one another. As long as both sides are polite, and working towards a resolution that improves the article, then all is well and discussion of editors removing themselves become moot. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Una Smith's concerns
Here are the sentences in the article that are of particular concern to me. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 19
Its origins are ancient, as the Sorraia is a descendent of a primitive horse which was part of the naturally occurring wild fauna of Southern Iberia.
 * Here "primitive horse" is a piped link to Tarpan. This appears to say that the breed descends from Equus ferus rather than Equus caballus.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Royo et al (2005) say the hypothesis that the Sorraias represent the ancestors of the present Southern Iberian horses (d'Andrade 1945) would not be well supported on a maternal genetic basis. That is an understatement.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the lead to remove the reference to the Tarpan. As for your second point, no where in the article do we say that the Sorraia's are the ancestors of present Southern Iberian breeds - we were actually very careful not to say this, due to the past and ongoing studies that are attempting to describe the true relationship between all of these breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 20
dark muzzle area
 * Some horses and other equines have "mealy" muzzles and underparts, due to lighter colored hair. Horses that have dark muzzles often appear that way because the hair on the muzzle is very fine and short, and their black skin shows through.  So, in short, mealy and dark muzzles are orthogonal traits:  they can occur together.  So the question here is:  are the muzzles dark in the grullo manner, or in the manner of many horses in summer?  --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From the references, it appears to be dark year-round, not just in the summer when the hair is short. They never gain the "mealy" look that many other duns do. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 21
Foals are often born with a compressed hair pattern on their bodies that gives the illusion of transverse striping.
 * This is interesting but not unusual, and does not appear to belong in the paragraph where it is now. I don't know that it belongs in this article.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have references to say that this is a common phenomenon, please provide them and I will be happy to add them into the article. For now, it relates to the color because the illusory striping could be confused for primitive markings, and we're saying that it's not a part of the primitive marking system. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is given by Selona on Talk:Sorraia. But I now think the topic belongs on Primitive markings, not in this article.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant a reliable source that this was common to other breeds besides the Sorraie. I don't believe Selona provided this, but please let me know which section it's in if I just missed it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From Selona on Talk:Sorraia:
 * Having seen incidence of these primitive characteristics emerge in foals of horses he was breeding, (which later turned grey and lost their primitive striping), d'Andrade postulated that the native wild horses he had seen were the originators of the modern Lusitano and Andalusian horses and became inspired to acquire a herd of these zebros to keep on his own estate for the purposes of research.
 * Ref: Cordeiro pg. 74 Ref: Gonzaga pg. 42
 * On reading it now, I don't know that it refers to the wavy hair coat. I have never seen a Sorraia but I have seen new foals and adult horses with a transient wavy hair coat.  It occurs if the summer coat is long and gets wet and dries undisturbed.  The foal in Selona's photo appears to have a longer coat than most, especially over the dorsal stripe.  Anyway, its occurrence outside the breed is not important to the article so does not need to be mentioned, much less sourced.  My main issue with the sentence is that it is in a section titled Color.  I will move it, and then I think this issue is done.  --Una Smith (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana wrote: Una, I reverted your rewording and movement of the striped foal information. This information is in the color section because there is a good chance that the striping could be confused with primitive markings. That's why it's in the color section - so that readers remember that we were just talking about primitive markings, but that this pattern isn't, it fades soon after birth.
 * I think that is a good reason to mention it in the article but not in the Color section, where I think it verges on lecturing the reader. Here is the current version:


 * "On their bodies" is vague; I thought what is intended is "across the back", but the source says "all over".  Herringbone seems to be the most precise description I can find.  "Soon after birth" is vague;  on Talk:Sorraia Selona states "in a few weeks" but the source says:


 * I'll have another go at improving this in the article. --Una Smith (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Una and Dana, as I wrote during discussions on the Sorraia talk page, this "zebra-like pattern" is not that important to include and it is not something only Sorraia foals can be born with. No need to make a big deal out of it.  I guess it remained in the article because at first Dana put it in the article (see Dec first Dec 18 version) and I wanted to make sure that it was known that these particular foals stripes were not color stripes but rather crimped hair that presents an illusion of stripes and disappears after a few weeks.  I had a photo to demonstrate, and that's probably why this remained in the article, but I've seen photos of other dun foals with the same phenomenon. (These are not the same stripes the d'Andrade comment refers to.  Some Andalusian and Lusitano foals are actually born grulla with real stripes that disappear when the horse sheds out to grey.  That's what d'Andrade is referring to.)  Also, the lay-pattern stripes do occur in full grown horses, my stallion has a few on his neck area, more like wrinkles.  The foal zebra-pattern is not essential to the article and can be removed.    If you think you'd all miss the photo, we can replace it with a reference photo showing a Kiger mustang mare I have that is of excellent Sorraia phenotype which would tie in to the mention of these Sorraia type mustangs in North America.  Just let me know, and I'll upload a few for you to chose from.Selona (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Una and I have worked out the wording and placement of the section. However, any additional photos would be great, as we could still use more in other sections of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dana, doesn't it feel great? Selona, is the hair coat paragraph okay with you now?  --Una Smith (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana, I'll put up some more photos tomorrow (they are on my studio computer not my home computer). Una, the hair coat entry is okay, but might also include that the overall hair stroke pattern disappears after several weeks.  FWIW, Altamiro sired his first three foals in 2008 (well I suppose he "sired" them in 2007, they were born in 2008).  The first one had the hair stroke to a degree (born in April), the second did not at all (born in May), the third had it in spades (born in August). Selona (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue 22
Sorraia horses have bi-colored manes and tails with lighter colored hairs that fringe the outside of the longer growing black hair.
 * This is a property of duns in general, not of Sorraia more specifically. The paragraph in which this sentence appears contains some sentences that do not concern color.  This sentence is okay by itself, but should be put in context:  it is a detail of these horses being grullo. --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a sentence saying that this is a characteristics shared with other dun colored horses, and is not specific to the Sorraia. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it needs to be said here, alone these lines:


 * See? --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved some info around in the color section to put all of the dun characteristics together, so hopefully it works better this way. Dana boomer (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 23
They were originally thought to be related to the Barb horse, probably through a prehistoric land bridge at Gibraltar
 * This land bridge bit is nonsense but its presence in the article promotes the idea that there is some evidence for these breeds predating the reopening of the Strait of Gibraltar 5.33 million years ago. I would delete this sentence from the article.  Or, say who thought so:  I expect it was d'Andrade (1945), the source of a number of wild ideas.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Royo et al (2005) say in their intro The Southern Iberian horses are assumed to have a common origin with the Barb horse on the other side of the Strait of Gibraltar (Aparicio 1944; Jansen et al. 2002; Sotillo and Serrano 1985). but their discussion refutes the assumption. --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would by why the very next sentence says "but this is currently thought to be untrue". We are showing that this has been refuted, but we are also giving what the original theory was. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What reliable source states that the relationship is probably through a prehistoric land bridge? The prehistoric land bridge is extremely problematic. --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with a version of this criticism. Some of the references discuss the potential relationship between the Sorraia and the Barb, and they hypothesized that these animals came with the Moors and were allowed to breed with local populations. Given the timeframe we're talking about here, that seems far more likely. But as was pointed out, this is academic, seeing as the next sentence contradicts whatever you say here.   --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement (about the landbridge) has been removed. It was originally sourced to Oklahoma State University, which has been deemed a reliable source in horse articles in the past, and which referenced Oelke's work, but it's not a huge deal in the whole scope of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 24
The genus Equus (horses and related species) has been present on the Iberian peninsula since the Pleistocene era, around 1.8 million years ago.
 * History of the genus does not belong in an article about a domestic breed with a record that goes back only to the 1920's. That's like starting an article about a human family by reviewing the paleontology of apes. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would remove this sentence from the article. --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed this sentence, as you do make a good point that we don't go back to the beginning of Equus in all other breed articles. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 25
The horses resemble the Tarpan, making its origins quite ancient, and Paleolithic parietal art images in the region depict equines with a distinct likeness to the Sorraia, with similar zebra-like markings.
 * This breed resembles the tarpan to the same extent that other dun breeds do; a resemblance does not make its origins quite ancient. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already reworded this before you posted this, to make it less "Sorraia resembles Tarpan, therefore ancient". I can, however, give you multiple reliable sources that link the Sorraia to the Tarpan and discusses their ancient origins. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. That was a popular theme.  So write about who promoted it, but be very careful.  The reliable sources quoted by Selona do not connect these two taxa to the same extent that this article does.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 26
Spanish conquistadors took Iberian horses, some of whom closely resembled the modern-day Sorraia, to the Americas in their conquests, probably as pack animals.
 * The "closely resembled" is a weasel and most of this sentence is a tangent. No question the Sorraia is related to South American breeds, but again that is not evidence of antiquity of the Sorraia breed nor that the Sorraia breed is an ancestor of the New World breeds.  I would remove this sentence from the article.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence has been reworded in response to Thesoxlost's comment above, which was in response to your concerns. The previous version - that conquistadors took Sorraias specifically to the Americas - is closer to what the sources say, and I can provide at least three reliable sources that state this. I agree that this version is vague, but the other option is to change it back to the more specific, which you didn't like either. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 27
In the time of Christopher Columbus, the Sorraia was also known as the Marismeño
 * I'd like to see a reliable source for this, otherwise the article can say that a certain author says this. What exactly do Royo et al  report about these two breeds?  --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the current ref (Oelke's book) unreliable? He is a published expert on the breed, who has published at least one book (which we're referencing), authored papers published by the National Academy of Science, and his work has been referred to in many other papers. I have given what other authors report about these two breeds - that they have currently diverged - but they don't give any information on the history of the breeds. If you have another source that contradicts Oelke, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly does Oelke say about this? --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Selona gave me the information, it was from her book. The exact quote is:
 * "Hardy Oelke quotes d'Andrade's writings with this to say about the Marismeño: 'It is well known that the animals from the Tejon delta (Sorraias) and those from the Guadalquivir (Marismeños) which came with Columbus to America, were of the same kind.' Ref: Oelke, H (1997). 'Born Survivors on the Eve of Extinction', pg.58, 62. Kierdorf Verlag, Wipperfürth, Germany ISBN 3-89118-096-9"

I recommend rewriting the Characteristics section so that it omits all discussion of relationships to other taxa. Then, rewrite the Relationship section to include a mention of the distribution of dun and gullo among extant horse breeds and other equines. Finally, rewrite the History section to make clear the difference between what is known and what is inferred from phylogenetic analysis. --Una Smith (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Characteristics section does not discuss relationships with other taxa. The distribution of dun and grullo among other breeds would be a tangent that would just get the article off track, IMO. And, as I've posted above, for most of the initial history section, we don't say that things are fact. We say that the Sorraia's "resemble" horses in cave paintings and give two references for it - we don't say that they are the horses in cave paintings. There are other examples of this too, but I'm sure you get my point. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That horses in cave paintings are dun belongs in the article Dun gene, not this article. Or, should we mention this resemblance in every article on a horse breed that has the dun gene?  --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have it referenced to two reliable sources (both books, both provided by Selona) that say specifically that the horses in cave paintings resemble the Sorraia. That is why the article says that the horses in the cave paintings resemble the Sorraia - because that's what the sources say. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 28
To me, the article kind of misses the big idea about this breed, which is that like the Heck horse and the Konik, the Sorraia began as an effort to recreate the tarpan. To bring out the idea, I rewrote the lead.

Old lead:


 * The Sorraia is a breed of horse indigenous to as region on the Iberian Peninsula known today as Portugal. It is a small breed, but hardy and able to adapt well to harsh conditions. It is known for its coloring, being always grulla or dun with primitive markings. Its origins are ancient, as the Sorraia is a descendent of a primitive horse which was part of the naturally occurring wild fauna of Southern Iberia. Members of the breed were occasionally captured and used by native farmers for centuries, and a remnant population of these nearly extinct horses was discovered by a Portuguese zoologist in the early 20th century.

New lead:


 * The Sorraia is a horse breed native to southern Portugal that is known for its coloring: always dun or grullo (a variant of dun) with primitive markings.  The breed was founded in the 1920's to recreate (at least in appearance) a then vanishing and now extinct landrace of feral horses in southern Portugal.  Being dun with primitive markings, both the landrace and the breed resemble the tarpan, an extinct species closely related to Equus caballus, the domestic horse.

Also, I added a list of breeds to Grullo. --Una Smith (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that no where in any of the sources that I have seen does it say that d'Andrade was attempting to recreate the Tarpan. He was attempting to save the group of horses that the natives called "zebro" and that he called "Sorraia". He said they resembled the Tarpan, and felt that they were a very ancient herd of horses, but was not breeding them in an attempt to re-create the Tarpan. The Heck horse, on the other hand, was a deliberate attempt to re-create the Tarpan - that was the only reason the breed was created. I reverted your changes to the lead, since you have a habit of changing first, talking later. Discuss here first, please, and gain consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The new lead does not say that d'Andrade was attempting to recreate the Tarpan. As Selona's contributions on Talk:Sorraia show, he was attempting to recreate the feral landrace, and to do that he selected dun and grullo individuals from domestic herds. --Una Smith (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he did not select individuals from captive herds, and he wasn't attempting to "recreate" the breed. He captured the horses from wild herds, and if something is still around, you cannot "recreate" it, you can only preserve it. Also, the Sorraia came into being before Portugal existed. Therefore, we cannot say it is "native to southern Portugal", but we can say "indigenous to a region on the Iberian Peninsula known today as Portugal", which is the current wording. And it is common in horse articles to have both "breed" and "horse" wikilinked going to different articles - this gives readers a broad spectrum of articles they can go to, depending on whether they want more information on horses in general or specifically various breeds of horses. Dana boomer (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Selona's contributions, that is exactly what he did. --Una Smith (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The breed was created in the 1920's, in Portugal. --Una Smith (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing in Selona's contributions where it says that d'Andrade took already captive horses to recreate a breed. Could you point out the specific section? As for your second point, d'Andrade did not "create" this breed. He renamed a wild herd of horses that the locals had known for centuries as "zebro" and worked to preserve them as the true wild herd was going extinct. This breed had been present in the areas for centuries before d'Andrade stumbled upon them and started working with them - they were just known by a different name (discussed in the naming section). They did not just spring up out of the ground in the 1920's when d'Andrade found them on a hunting trip, and d'Andrade did not "create" them, he preserved them! Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a link which states explicitly that the breed came from 11-12 individuals which d'Andrade secured in the 1920s. Are there sources which contradict this.  There is no mention of the individuals being a "wild herd" what is the reference for the "Zebo" assertion?--Kevmin (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The group he had originally seen had dispersed and d'Andrade found it necessary to reconstruct a breeding herd base on his earlier observations by purchasing phenotypically identical specimens which were yet in existence, mingled among the free roaming domestic herds of various land owners in the region. --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Una, that link goes to a history, not a dif. Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 29: Landrace
Part of the disagreement here is the difference between a breed and a landrace. A breed is a human construct. It is a matter of historical record that the Sorraia breed was established in the 1920's. The landrace may have been far older, if the historical accounts of zebro in fact refer to this landrace and not to some other landrace of grullo horses such as the Garrano. --Una Smith (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Landrace is not a taxonomic concept but a descriptive term for a kind of relationship between humans and any group of other organisms. The article Landrace is a sketchy stub with some POV issues; here is a better explanation, in a book on plant breeding. A landrace can be a species apart, or not; what matters is that it is cultivated and/or selected by humans, but not selectively bred. A landrace is not a breed because there is no pedigree and no selective breeding. A landrace may be domesticated or not, depending on the circumstances of its cultivation and selection. The horses that d'Andrade saw circa 1920 were a landrace because they were indigenous, they were recognized as a natural kind by local people, and although free roaming they were a managed population:  tolerated rather than hunted and killed, and captured and used as needed by local people. --Una Smith (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Una, thank you for the alternative link and for elaborating on the concept of landrace. In reading reference you provided via google books I'm even less convinced this is the appropriate term to pin on the Sorraia's predecessors.  Von Rümker's observations (as described in the book link) are more in line with what the Sorraia represents, especially with regards to its distinguishing characteristics are preserved even when grown outside its native region (as exampled in the Kiger Mustangs when discovered in the 1970's), but this plant breeding book reference makes it clear that nowadays landrace refers to the definite management from humans.  It's conjecture for us to imagine that humans managed the wild zebro.  16th century hunting texts describe them being hunted as game animals, and these horses nearly went extinct because they were not managed--the last survivors had to eek out survival in the most remote regions where humans rarely frequented.  This hardly describes an example of human cultivation, more it describes human neglect and near extermination.  I'm partial to describing the Sorraia as representing "naturally occurring wild fauna" of the region.  If this is unacceptable, why not refer to them in the manner which the scientific journals have such as "The Sorraia horse is a breed with unusual characteristics. It was recovered and maintained with the purpose of preserving an equine type considered to be representative of the ancestral Iberian horse, from which several domestic horse breeds may have been derived and that probably existed in the Iberian Peninsula since the Palaeolithic period." http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/98/3/232  retrieved 06Feb09Selona (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we all agree that the Sorraia is a horse breed dating from d'Andrade's 1930 selection of a foundation herd? That leaves open the question of what to call its progenitors.  --Una Smith (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An alternative to species and landrace would be "population". Or, if the animals did not constitute a population (a breeding group), a "type".  --Una Smith (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm taking off my reviewer hat and putting on my editor hat:
 * This is a purely semantic issue, is it not? The term breed predates a modern understanding of genetics, selection, and breeding for specific traits; it has been used since at least the 1500s to refer as groups of domesticated animals. The Sorraia was allowed to return to the wild, but it is a horse, a species domesticated by its interactions with man.  Is it unreasonable to call it a breed prior to 1930?  If a population of a given species remains unchanged for 10000 years, and you name a breed and define a breed standard in 1930, are the ancestors "of that breed"?  Of course they predate the definition of the standard, but in a very meaningful way they are of the same breed: if these ancestors were transported through time and bred to a modern member of the population, would it "breed true"? Would it produce offspring that fit the breed standard? If we agree the answer is yes, then this issue is semantic.  If we don't agree that the answer is yes, then the issue isn't whether to use the term breed, but whether you want to imply a strong genetic relationship.


 * Lastly, don't build too much significance or value into the term "breed." Not only does it predate our scientific understanding of genetics, it's meaning was largely solidified in the age of eugenics. Much of the racial arrogance has been dropped by the wayside (as it has been shown to be hogwash), but it really remains a ridiculous, non-scientific, unsystematic and utterly arbitrary method of categorization. The concept of breed purity or breed standards are equally ridiculous. I'd urge this debate away from technical definitions of the term "breed." The reason the Sorraia is interesting is because (1) of the genetic relationship between the modern population and the ancient population; and (2) because it is being preserved to maintain genetic material that could otherwise be lost. I'd argue for focusing on that. --Thesoxlost (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thesoxlost wrote: "The reason the Sorraia is interesting is because (1) of the genetic relationship between the modern population and the ancient population; and (2) because it is being preserved to maintain genetic material that could otherwise be lost. I'd argue for focusing on that." Yes, okay...let the focus reflect this good summation. Thank you for this.Selona (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Ants Overtaking a Picnic
So this is what the review process is like, eh? Festive, in its way, I suppose. I have just begun processing what interesting exchanges and rapid-fire edits have been taking place, and I do feel a little like I am wanting to shoo ants away from my cake. For what its worth, I would like a few days to form a detailed commentary (rebuttal?) and hopefully keep this article from becoming a hollow, truncated version of its former self. For now, let me just say that there is much more to the phenotype of the Sorraia than its primitive color. It's obvious in putting this article together there was not enough focus on the other morphological characteristics unique to the Sorraia. I should also relay (as I did on Una Smith's talk page) I am not an aspiring wiki-editor and am quite unversed in your wiki-world. My interest in this article is to assure as much as is known about the Sorraia is adequately included in this article. So, with the kind indulgence of all the players here, please may I have a few days to properly address some of the concerns brought forward?Selona (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you may have that time. I don't feel that we've made any huge changes to the article, and of course anything new needs to be reliably souced, but you are welcome to bring any new evidence forward. I believe that we have resolved most of Una's concerns, as she has not replied to my replies for most things above, without making major changes to the article. However, as I said, feel free to bring in the new information. Dana boomer (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana boomer, I have not edited the article again only because you told me not to and you reverted my edits. Most of my concerns have not been resolved. --Una Smith (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was meaning that you have not replied to my replies above on this page. I have given you my explanations for my edits and the reason that certain things are in the article, under each of your concerns listed above. You have not replied to me on most of them. Yes, I asked you to refrain from editing the article until your edits had consensus - I said nothing about not editing this talk page. If your concerns have not been resolved, then please reply point by point above as to why they are not. I have incorporated several of your comments - the rest I do not agree with and have given my reasons (and sources) for why I do not agree with them. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Selona, unfortunately, no, this is not what a review process is supposed to be like. The GA review process is intended as a means for improving articles and encouraging editors to aspire to a particular style. I hope that my initial comments can be seen in that light, and I hope it can be brought back to that standard. Bickering and incivility are particularly inappropriate in this context. WP always benefits from more views, especially from individuals with a sincere interest in improving the accuracy of the articles. Thanks for getting involved, and please don't let the "festive" process scare you away. --Thesoxlost (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 30/31: Sorraia and Tarpan
I would like to also express my discomfort at the implication of the Sorraia as a descendant of the Tarpan. The history section starts with the statement the Equus has been present on the Iberian Peninsula. The second sentence states the Sorraia was developed in the southern portion of I.P. I would note that the Paleobiology database shown no instances of Equus fossils in the southern I.P. I would like to know the wording of References 3, 14, and 15 to see how those authors refer to the similarities and what backing evidence they use. As has been shown numerous times with Aves over the last decade, taxa which highly resemble other taxa are just as often not closely related at all. This is a long winded way of saying that inferences based solely on external appearances should only be made when backed with genetics.--Kevmin (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input Kevmin. I think we all share that concern; physical resemblance is not sufficient to claim a genetic relationship. We've seen the same thing in Dogs as in Aves, and horse breeds would be no different.  As far as I know, there is no reliable information that links this breed to the Tarpan.  Given that, I think we are all in agreement that it should not be implied that there is a relationship here.  What changes are you proposing? Removing the Tarpan sentence entirely and sticking simply to statements that it has primitive characteristics?--Thesoxlost (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. While the major contributors of the article are right to state that they have not made any concrete statements regarding any connections between the Sorraia and the Tapan. However, the statements are such that the implied take home message is that they are.  I would stick with the term primitive coloration, or some variant there of, and not Mention Tapan at all, the connection simply doesn't exist scientifically right now.--Kevmin (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns here. However, I can list several sources that imply or directly state a relationship between the Sorraia and the Tarpan (as soon as I get to my books, I'm on a different computer right now). Even if we have to say something like "some scholars believe these two are related or resemble each other", I don't believe this viewpoint can be completely disregarded. I will get my sources with exact quotes up here probably tomorrow morning - I won't be home (and therefore have access to my books) until late tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are my sources and what they say:
 * "Its origins are thought to be remote as it shows a resemblence to the Asiatic wild horse and to the Tarpan" (Bongianni, Horses and Ponies, Entry 154) (The Asiatic wild horse claim was not included in the article because it was not backed up by multiple sources)
 * "Both breeds (discussing the Sorraia and the Garrano) stem from the same primitive stock, principally represented by the Tarpan" (Edwards, The Encyclopedia of the Horse, p. 104)
 * While discussing the Sorraia, "There could, however, be strong ties to the wild Tarpan, now extinct." (Hendricks, International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds, p. 384)
 * I cannot find any sources that directly say these two are not linked, although if any are pointed out to me, I will take them. Would it work for the editors above if we reworded it something like "Some equine scholars believe that there could be ties between the Sorraia and the extinct Tarpan, due to a physical resemblence between the two groups. They believe this makes the Sorraia a primitive horse with remote origins (ref 1, 2, 3). Other scholars say (if we have other references that discount this theory)." Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The major thing I take for the quotes is the breed is primitive in appearance, as the tarpan was. However even these do not outright say Sorraia=Tarpan, they are all rather hesitant about any commitment on the subject.  Also That I know of there is no genetics linking the two am I correct?--Kevmin (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the surprising claim that needs a reliable source, not the mundane one, and this article presents a number of surprising claims. Speculation about grullo horses across Europe being descendants of Equus ferus ferus rather than Equus caballus has been going on for over 100 years.  The Wikipedia article about Equus ferus ferus needs a lot more content, including a discussion of 19th century debates over what was the "real" Equus ferus ferus.  Even before its extinction this was a big problem, with some authors saying that grullo horses were being mistaken for Equus ferus ferus and consequently the evidence for a close connection between grullo horses and E. f. ferus was actually based on comparisons between horses and horses.  Some of that literature is on Google Books.  I added a short list of horse breeds in which the grullo color occurs to Grullo.  Montanabw deleted the list, so see this prior version. --Una Smith (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on this. My personal view is that the Sorraia-Tarpan link is speculative. That authors have suggested a link to the Tarpan is evidently an established bibliographic fact, and should remain in the article. It seems to me the issue is whether there is any evidence for the link, other that "primitive features". It wouldn't surprise me if there were no references challenging the link, because it probably wouldn't occur to a mainstream geneticist that anyone would even make the link, so why challenge it? If this weren't Wikipedia, it would be my inclination to insert after the summary of the Sorraia=Tarpan references, a sentence stating "However, there is no genetic evidence to support the link." Unfortunately, that is "reference by absence", which is not a good thing for a GA. On the other hand, although assumptions about ancient ancestry based on "primitive" phenotype are not uncommon among horse and dog fanciers, in the genetics community they might well be regarded as "fringe", and come under the purview of WP:UNDUE. It occurs to me that something like "Although he provided no evidence other than shared morphological features, So-and-so stated that the Sorraia was likely a descendant of the Tarpan." Assuming this were the case, it would be fully referenced.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Status: On hold
All of my major concerns regarding this article have been addressed, or a solution has been agreed upon. Otherwise, I think that the article meets all the WP:GA criteria. That said, I think Una Smith still has some reservations, and I notice that she has asked some users (e.g., Curtis Clark) to weigh in on the issue. Let's give them a chance to weigh in. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More eyes are always useful. I have no problem waiting for a little while longer to see if anyone else has any input. Thanks again for the review, and don't hesitate to bring up any other issues that you find with the article in the meantime. Dana boomer (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Selona is the primary contributor to Talk:Sorraia, and her edits contain extensive information and references. It appears that little of her contributions have yet been worked into the article.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, you may want to re-read the talk page. Selona, Montanabw and I worked closely together for several weeks to craft this article into what it is today. Yes, Selona provided the majority of the information on the talk page, mainly in the form of quotations from sources that she had access to, and personal information (as she is one of the people involved in the preservation of the breed) that couldn't be worked into the article due to it being OR. She provided most of the sources that we are currently using the article. However, you will also see my responses (as well as Montanabw's) interspersed on the talk page in just about every section. All of her contributions that could be reliably sourced were worked into the article. She is actually the one that provided the sources for most of the points you are presenting as problems below. Please see late December section entitled "One Cumbersome Section Left", where she expresses her satisfaction with the then-current state of the article, which is quite similar to how it looks today, aside from minor wordsmithing from this GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Dana boomer reverted my contributions to the article, with the edit summary Reverting to last version by myself - Una, quit making changes until things have been worked out on the review page - not everyone agrees with these changes. She followed this with (so far) 6 more edits, some replicating my contributions that she had just reverted. In light of Dana boomer's request that others refrain from editing the article without waiting for permission from others, I request that Dana boomer refrain from editing the article as well. --Una Smith (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this GA review, one of the criteria is stability and this article is not stable. --Una Smith (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard for GA is that the article is "stable, and not subject to ongoing edit warring". In 2008, the major contributors to this page had disagreements about the content. They worked hard to resolve these issues, and came to a solution all were happy with.  Barnstars were thrown around.  From that point up until the nomination for GA status, there were no complaints about content.  Since the GA review, there have been many changes as the contributors make edits suggested by reviewers. You have acted as a reviewer here; it is inappropriate for you to initiate edit wars by making edits that are being actively discussed and contraversial. Reviewers are urged to fix the easy problems when they can, not to impose their views.


 * The major contributors to this page have demonstrated a clear good-faith effort to improve the page in light of your criticism. Given your long-standing problems with these editors, I am inclined to suspect that you will continue to bring up, or make up, problems regardless of how many concessions they make.  In short, I suspect you may be here to tank the GA review of an editor that you perceive to be a WP rival. If this is not the case, could you please demonstrate your good faith by stating the circumstances under which you believe the article should be passed.  If all of the criticisms you have currently posted are substantively addressed, do you oppose the GA nomination of this page?--Thesoxlost (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to question from Thesoxlost)

Short answer: When the concerns I have already listed are resolved, then I will agree the article meets the GA criteria. --Una Smith (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Long answer: Edit summaries aside, far and away the major contributor to this article is Selona. Not just the reliable sources, but the bulk of the information available here from those sources comes from her. Selona is a new editor here. Her first contribution was to this article. The next edit to the article was by Montanabw, with edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorraia&diff=255248107&oldid=255204819 Please do not remove existing material unless inaccurate or UNTIL you have something better. Do not remove appropriate wikilinks. Reverting most, keeping some. Please ask for help on talk if needed.] Selona edited the article 5 more times over the next 3 days, until Montanabw posted the edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorraia&diff=255923897&oldid=255895359 Reverting until you learn to format these things properly. Do it right, please. Please ask for help if you need it.] Montanabw also gave Selona "some advice" on Selona's talk page.  Montanabw and Dana boomer then took over editing the article. Since then, Selona has contributed to the talk page but edited the article only once, to fix a typo. I think Selona has done a wonderful job of working with Montanabw and Dana boomer despite their discouraging her from editing the article. Apparently, Selona did not know about the GA review until I notified her on her talk page. Salona has asked for time to read and reflect on the article and the discussions of it here. I think she is more than entitled to as much time as she needs. Meanwhile, the rest of us will refrain from any further edits to the article. Okay? --Una Smith (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Una, Selona can speak for herself. I believe that she and Dana have become on friendly terms with each other.  Let this go.   Montanabw (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Outcome of the GA Review as of 30 Jan 2009
In my opinion, this is a well-written article that illustrates some of the best of wikipedia: the major contributors to this article initially strongly disagreed, but worked hard to come to numerous resolutions, and improve the article. At the beginning, one of these editors was going to leave WP because of content disputes, but civil and productive discussion brought about a complete reversal, and at the end the editors were buying each other virtual beers. This reflects well on these editors, and they should be congratulated for their success.

That said, there are clearly some content disputes that persist on the content of this article. I am of the opinion that this content dispute may be manufactured, and that the main purpose of one user's comments may be to interrupt the GA review process. Nonetheless, these concerns cannot be completely discounted. Because there were no content conflicts prior to the nomination of this article, there is good reason to believe that this conflict will not be persistent. With that in mind, the review is on hold for a week.

The remaining criticisms are those made by User:Una Smith. In the following week, I encourage Una to engage the contributors in a civil and productive discussion. The tone on both sides should be collegial. After the hold period, the article will be evaluated again. This review has become a conflict, and I would prefer to not serve as mediator. But I would like to warn both sides: to the major contributors, Dana and Selena, please be open to the criticisms made on this page, and be careful to include all reasonable opposing view-points. To the critics, please make absolutely sure that your criticisms don't come across as an extension of your longstanding conflict with the major contributors. If there is evidence that critics are not acting in good faith, I may WP:IAR and discount certain objections. I would much prefer that these editors come to an agreement on their own. --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sox, I see a lot has happened in a couple of days. I think that it is important to realize that most of what is happening here is a dispute by ONE editor, who has been in multiple disputes all across WikiProject Equine.  As far as I know, Selona was supportive of the work done by Dana, who had the patience I often lack to walk a new user through the process of creating a quality article.  The article was created by a long, collaborative process whereby Selona provided content and expertise, while Dana, who is an experienced editor with multiple GA articles to her credit, did the crafting and wordsmithing to create the final project.  I occasionally weighed in with comments on areas where I had concerns, offered occasional wordsmithing, and in general, once things were proceeding apace, stepped back to let the people doing the real work get their work done!  This article should be hailed as one of the finest examples of what collaboration on wikipedia is all about, not embroiled in an edit war at this point.  This is not the first time that Una has attempted to derail a horse article on its way to GA, it is not the first time she has manufactured a one-person crisis on a WIkiProject Equine article, and I urge you to exercise independent judgment on this matter, considering all sources involved.   Montanabw (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The hold did not hold more than a few hours. Dana boomer and Montanabw both are back to editing the article.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited a category. Dana is lead and primary editor on this article and the person trying to get it to GA.  Una, Thesox has asked you to tone it down.  Montanabw (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, Thesoxlost was not saying there was a hold on editing for a while. He was saying the review is on hold while we work out your final concerns. He didn't say anything about not editing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this observation. Further, Una, the fact that people sometimes conclude that you are raising objections to derail things or to get back at other editors ought to give you concern. You should strive to act in ways that do not lend themselves to that perception. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thesoxlost: You are doing important work here, and doing it well. Please do not despair... your advice to the contributors is well stated, and if they take it (as I have every confidence most of them will), all will be well. If one editor remains intransigent, do what you think is right for the article and pass or fail the article on its merits. Thank you for your service to the project. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Selona Comments on the Concerns
I appreciate this review and the concerns it has raised because it shows where some areas of the article are weak and prone to prompting misconceptions for readers. For example, if a reader comes away from this article with the impression that the Sorraia is a breed established in the 1930's with a focus on the primitive color features of dun and grulla with wild claims of a more ancient ancestry, then it is obvious more work needs to be done to make it possible for the reader to have a more comprehensive understanding of the Sorraia horse.

In the spirit of providing assistance to this more comprehensive understanding, I offer the following apologia ...

On the relatedness of the Sorraia to the Tarpan

I had asked Hardy Oelke about a mtDNA relatedness that he and the German geneticist, Thomas Jansen (and others) had discovered during a follow up study after the publication of their paper, "Mitochondrial DNA and the origins of the domestic horse" (referenced in the Wiki Sorraia article). Publication of these new findings has been on hold until Jansen fully recovers from a prolonged illness. Naturally they are hesitant to share the details of their results until they have a chance to release them formally to the scientific community. However, Jansen & Oelke were willing to provide me with a prepared statement to use in this article, which says "Phenotypical similarities of grulla Sorraias with the Tarpan are obvious. Yet unpublished mtDNA results show a relatedness of Sorraia and Tarpan." (received via email 02Dec08)

I'm guessing this will not be accepted into this article as an adequate reference, however given that there are definitely shared phenotypical characteristics (already referenced by several sources) and this declaration of relatedness via mtDNA, I think it is important this wiki article at the very least note that scientists are continuing to research a potential genetic relationship between the Sorraia and the Tarpan. Once their paper is published, we can edit this article to reflect the certainty of the connection. (As an aside, the phenotypical characteristics are more comprehensive than the shared grulla coloring, which I will detail later on in this lengthy commentary.)

There is a book, '''Askania Nova. Das Tierparadies. written by Waldemar von Falz-Fein, published in 1930 by Neumann-Neudamm''', which contains an account of the Tarpan which should interest us regarding the phenotypical similarities between the Tarpan and the Sorraia. (Hardy Oelke has translated this German text into English and has kindly provided me with a copy of it for my private studies, but has asked that I not quote directly from it because he intends to use his translation in a future book.)

This text contains descriptions of the last purebred wild Tarpan mare, which Waldemar's brother Freidrich presented in 1919 to the Society of Friends of Natural Science in Berlin. Falz-Fein relays how the mare joined the free range herds belonging to Alexander Durilin on a vast tract of leased land, interbred with these domestic horses and for a time was actually captured in his barn. It also includes verbal accounts from people in the area who had known the existence of these horses before their extinction. These descriptions are very similar to the phenotype of the Sorraia and differ from other descriptions typically referred to, suggesting there were possible variants of the Tarpan "Wood Tarpans" and "Steppe Tarpans"  as well as pointing out that the Tarpan that was in the Moscow zoo in 1884 was not a purebred specimen and its characteristics favored it's domestic parent more than its Tarpan one. Hardy Oelke sums up Falz-Fein's discussion of the Tarpan here: http://www.horseshowcentral.com/flex/tarpan/410/1

To my understanding there is enough material here provided to warrant a mention of some commonalities between the Tarpan and the Sorraia.

On the Sorraia representing a recovered remnant population of an ancestral wild horse which inhabited the southern Iberian Peninsula

What I tried to get across when we were first working on the details of this article is that the progenitors of the Sorraia have no documented history as being cultivated by humans as a distinct breed. I pointed out that had this horse been the product of manmade selection, the Spaniards and the Portuguese would have documented it quite distinctly, as was their passions for maintaining the pedigrees of the Andalusian and the Lusitano horses--and this is precisely what happened in the 1930's with d'Andrade's preservation efforts began.

As Dana explained, d'Andrade did not create a breed when he established his preserve for these horses, rather he recovered horses that had dispersed and reunited them, providing them a habit and lifestyle similar to what they had known, in the hopes that he could keep the wild primitive characteristics from disappearing altogether. The remaining wild group that d'Andrade had found in the 1920's had lost its habitat by the 1930's and the only remaining representatives of this wild horse were those that had been absorbed into the expansive, loose herds of domestic horses which were then considered the property of the breeder of the domestic horses. In those days breeders had huge tracts of land and many allowed their herds free range over thousands of acres. (See Oelke's book, footnote 21 in the article) Typical behavior of wild horse groups is to not mingle with free roaming domestic herds, especially since the land owners posted horseman, like shepherds, to over see their free range herds. However, when wild horse horses are pushed out of their own territories, they have been known to take refuge with domestic groups. (This is exactly what happened to the last wild Tarpan according to the account of Friedrich von Falz-Fein, in "Askania Nova. Das Tierparadies" 1930). This same type of mingling of wild and domestic stock occurred with the North American Mustang. While it may be impossible to know whether these recovered specimens were 100% genetically pure, as a zoologist and hippologist, who better to select from the remaining representatives those that best displayed the phenotype of the wild zebro than d'Andrade? The homogenous results which persist even today are testament to the quality of d'Andrade's careful and detailed documentation of the wild zebros he encountered on that fateful hunting trip in 1920 and his subsequent selection of those zebros which had been absorbed by domestic herds in the 1930's. But let's see if we can understand better why historians and preservationists claim the Sorraia is a present day representative of the ancestral wild horses which dwelled in the region in past ages...

(These points have already been provided references for in the discussion segment of the article.)

Prior to d'Andrade's documentation of this wild horse type, what we do find by way of historic record is: a) cave paintings which depict striped horses with longer necks and convex profiles

b) the mention of dun and grulla striped wild horses that roamed the region going as far back as the writings of Varro, Strabo and St. Isidor of Sevilla

c) the price "Zebro" hides were expected to fetch

d) the mention of the existence of striped wild horses known as "Zebros" and "Marismeños" in antiquated hunting texts, which were hunted like game animals along with wild boar and deer

e) the accounts of peasant farmers capturing individuals from these wild herds to use as work animals

f) the account of Columbus' displeasure at discovering that these scrub peasant horses were unscrupulously switched, replacing the higher bred Andalusian horses he himself had personally selected to accompany him on his second voyage to the New World

g) the emergence among New World horses of the phenotype belonging to the primitive wild horse of southern Iberia

Aside from belonging to the same region and taking note of the phenotypical elements these wild ancestral horses share with the Sorraia (being long-necked, convex profile aka "Ram-headed", sloped crouped, extended withers reaching far along the back, oval hooved and dun/ grullo colored, replete with primitive striping) we also have, with the emergence of mtDNA research, a genetic identifier linking the Sorraia horses with the historic striped horse of the Iberian Peninsula. The mtDNA of the Sorraia has been discovered in certain strains North American Mustangs which establishes a definite relationship. Given that no "modern" Sorraia existed in North America (until the early 2000's) and knowing that Zebros/Marismenos were shipped over during Spain's colonization of the New World, it is obvious that these particular mustangs and the Sorraia share a common ancestor which originated in southern Iberia. All these considerations combined, provide a strong suggestion that the common ancestor is the indigenous wild horse of southern Iberia, of which the Sorraia is a modern day representative.

(Incidently, the Garrano is of different phenotype completely and came from the northern sector of the peninsula. Their different phenotype is prevalent as well in some New World horses, but that's not relevant here.)

Collectively, these are the criteria that historians and preservationists of the Sorraia base their claims upon. Some might find their claims to be "speculative" at best or "beyond the pale" at worst, but it seems to me that the goal here with this article is to report on the available information with sufficient references to allow users of this online encyclopedia to check the sources if they desire and form their own opinions of whether what is written is definitive or not. To leave out information that underlies the reasons preservationists, scientists and historians made these claims to begin with is more akin to censorship than encyclopedic reporting. I feel its important to provide the information, footnote the sources and allow those accessing the article to form their own judgements.

On the Phenotype of the Sorraia

(Each of these references-still present in the Wikipedia article at my last check- offer like descriptions of the phenotype of the Sorraia, as does the Studbook which I listed as a reference in the discussion page of the article.)

I feel especially remorseful that I did not pursue greater coverage of the distinct phenotype of the Sorraia. It pains me to think that many of you have determined the most significant feature of the Sorraia is its coat color. Let's see if we can do a better job of describing the other elements of the Sorraia phenotype.

The Sorraia is of refined proportions, narrow and long-limbed with light but strong bones and sturdy oval hooves with little to no fetlock hair. Averaging 14h-14.2h in height, with a long, thin neck giving the appearance of an "ewe neck" when in underweight condition, looking quite crested when overweight. The withers are prominent and reach well towards the middle of the medium-long back. The croup is well sloped with tapering hips which appear rafter-shaped when underweight. The head is very distinct, long and narrow, with medium-sized eyes placed high up, the profile structure of the skull is uniformly sub-convex to convex, in a continuous arch beginning at the poll, most pronounced just below the eye and ending at the nostrils. The muzzle is tapered, the ears are long and the throatlatch is clean. The overall appearance is of a horse higher in front than in the back, with long sloping lines not heavily muscled or square in the hindquarters when viewed from behind. The color is dun or grullo, no white markings with variations of shades within each ranging from light tan to mouse grey, which in addition to the typical features of a dorsal stripe and bi-coloring in mane and tail shared by all dun horses, the Sorraia has a dark, "sooty" muzzle which blends upward into the face and also has a variable degree of contrasting shoulder barring and horizontal stripes on the legs.

The phenotype of the Sorraia corresponds precisely with the Form III type of ancestral horse as described in the work of Ebhardt and Speed (reference footnotes #14 and #21) who belong to the polyphyletic school of theorists. Their research prompted them to identify four ancestral forms of horses from which they postulated all breeds of horses derive from. That the Sorraia displays such a keen resemblance to the Form III type tells us that he is much more than a color breed.

On the Fossil Record It was questioned why the Portuguese Studbook was referenced. [ '''Oom, d'Andrade, Costa-Ferreira (2004). "Stud Book da Raca Sorraia" pg. 124, 181. Artes Graficas, Alpiarça ISBN 972-8471-90-4 '''] This comprehensive book, which was only published in 2004, contains much more than a record of the horses d'Andrade recovered and set up on his preserve and their subsequent offspring. Included is all the research d'Andrade put together documenting his preservation efforts including historic studies of equine fauna of the region, specifically a paper he wrote in 1939 titled "Equideos do Fim Paleolitico e Inicio do Neolitico" (among other scientific publications included), as well as his "theories" regarding the importance of the Sorraia. Unfortunately the book is written in Portuguese and I am crippled by being singularly versed only in the English language, but I can tell you there are copious amounts of photos depicting skulls, teeth, leg bones, etc. which have the names of the locations from which they come from written underneath...the regions are in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula. D'Andrade compares the details and measurements of these fossil remains with those of deceased Sorraias and finds them to share many characteristics...so much so that during his day he believed the Sorraia to be a representative of Equus stenonis. Oelke's equally exhaustive research also gives him the impression that the Sorraia represents a subspecies of equine. Recognizing that these impressions go challenge existing accepted dogma on equine origins and not having enough varied sources to further support the subspecies theory, I did not attempt to have it included in the Wikipedia article. Though this may seem today like a most improbable theory, men like d'Andrade in many other fields of science have made equally suggestive claims that have not yet been provable, or have been proven untrue. My suggestion to those of you among this review group who are equine enthusiasts...stay tuned! Research continues and who knows?

To Close

I hope I have been able to provide added insight into this horse, the Sorraia, and that you will take these comments and references into consideration as you continue to make this article the best it can be. I will try to answer any subsequent questions to the best of my ability. And if there is some concern that I did not address, please bring it forward again--I was a bit overwhelmed with all the exchanges and may surely have missed something.

I would like to say one more time (as I did in the article's discussion page) it is not appropriate to refer to the work of d'Andrade and Oelke or even the Studbook as simply being the "unreliable sources" of "breed afficionados'. The Sorraia is not a breed in the way we think of an Arabian or a Thoroughbred or a Welsh Cob.  The websites showcasing these men's research are devoted to preservation efforts and the sharing of important information regarding an indigenous wild horse which nearly went extinct.  You will not find them promoting studs for hire, horses for sale and handing out awards for breed competitions or even soliciting for financial donations.  Oelke himself travels annually to Portugal as well as to the American West to continue to study the Sorraia and Sorraia Mustangs first hand--and he does as a devotion to the preservation effort.  His true (and paying) occupation is training and showing Western Reining horses. No one is trying to put forth any information for private gain here and I'm almost disgusted that I have to point this out once more. These men have been tireless in their desire to continue to study this unusual horse, the Sorraia. The Sorraia is so "different" from domestic horses that (as you can see by the variety of scientific articles published by a variety of researchers) that it is most important that Wikipedia make every effort to provide access to the information contributed from these highly regarded and reliable sources.

Thank you for allowing me to weigh in on your review of the Wikipedia Sorraia article. (she signs off with butterflies in her stomach!) Selona (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This makes a compelling, although certainly not conclusive, story, and I look forward to publication of the mtDNA results. I think all this belongs in the article in some form. From a scientific standpoint, it sets forth a hypothesis, which will be tested with mtDNA.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Selona, is there any ancient DNA from Tarpan ever isolated? if so, ref please, if not, how can they proof the genetic relatedness to the tarpan? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To add. Actually, the 2002 PNAS paper suggests that the species is closely related to the Prewalski's Horse based on mtDNA, not the Tarpan. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check on where these researchers came up with Tarpan mtDNA. The work Jansen and Oelke et al, have yet to publish is a follow up to this early PNAS study, from which they say they used a wider range of samples. Let me see what more info I might be able to provide. Selona (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, to answer Kim's query regarding the Tarpan DNA... The mtDNA samples upon which Jansen & Oelke base their statement (that the Sorraia shares a genetic relationship with the Tarpan) came from Konik horses considered to be descended from domestics crossbred with the Tarpan.

An overview of preserving the Tarpan crossbreds can be found here: http://www.horseshowcentral.com/flex/polish_konik/407/1 and here: http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/horsesinhistory/konik.shtml

The premise these men worked under was: If the A1 and A3 patterns are present in a majority of the Koniks, and knowing Sorraias were not used in the formation of the Konik (which we know contains some Tarpan DNA, the conclusion is these patterns represent the Tarpan.  And as the patterns show up in the Sorraias, the Sorraia have a genetic relationship with the Tarpan.

Regarding Kim's statement that the PNAS paper suggests the species is closely related to the Przewalski's horse based on mtDNA... while it does show that Prezewalski's horse is just two mutations apart from JSO41 (one of the two Sorraia mtDNA types) it is to be noted that Przewalski's horse is isolated in the network. According to Oelke, (one of the authors of the paper) the PNAS paper shows that the Przewalski's horse is not related to any other horse because its mtDNA was not found in any other horse.Selona (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Selona, thank you for your response. I am curious to see the data, which could indeed lead to some insight to the which branch within the horse phylogeny it belongs. As for the reasoning, it only would suggest a closer relationship to the wild horse, but not proof it were wildhorses, as various other breeds do have the same mitochondrial haplotype as well. Alternative explanations could be bottlenecks, founder effects and even selection. As for Oelke's claim that because the Prezewalski is on a seperate branch, it therefore is a seperate species, is very doubtfull. First of all, the Prezewalski is based on very few founders, resulting in a founder effect. Second of all, seperate braches is one criterion for deciding whether something is a seperate species or not, but genetic distance also, and 2 mutations on the scope of the total mutational variation between haplotypes is really limited. Third of all, genetic research using other forms of DNA (Autosomal and sex chromosomes) show that the prewalski is placed solidly in between the domestic horses, and not on a seperate branch. Unfortunately, both the Prezewalski and the konick have been crossed with domestic horses, and gone through bottlenecks. It will remain very difficcult to determine what is going on. So, if anything, research shows a close relationship with the Prezewalski, despite that it is no a seperate branch, the genetic distance between the Sorraia and the Prezewalski is far shorter than many of the lineages within the dometic horse, and as such, the best we can say is that we actually just don't know yet. My educated guess is that this issues won't be resolved untill large sclae ancient DNA is obtained from bones that are obviously from wild horses, preferably from the time before domestication. My gut tell me after reading some articles of chinese researchers that they are on that track, but that remains to be seen. As for this article, I think we can say that there is a resemblence, and that it is speculated that this breed might be genetically relative close to the wild horse, but that there is insufficient data to colclude that conclusively. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Referring to this last part that Kim wrote: "As for this article, I think we can say that there is a resemblance, and that it is speculated that this breed might be genetically relative close to the wild horse, but that there is insufficient data to conclude that conclusively." This seems reasonable and provides that wee bit of balance I've been working for. And of course I second Curtis Clark's comments as well.Selona (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary of criticisms
OK, I'm rather lost. There are so many discussions that have been held on this page that I'm not sure what's still valid and what's not. Could things that people feel need to be fixed please be listed below this - and please make them specific concerns with proposed solutions if possible. We've had a ton of editors jumping into this article and the review lately, so I'm really not sure which of all of the above cocnerns are still relevant... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dana, I agree, a fog seems to have descended and its difficult to know where to navigate from here. I certainly am willing to go through the article as it stands presently and make up a list of what I feel requires editing, and I will be happy to do so if it is the consensus of Thesoxlost and those mentors which are guiding him through this pea soup.  My personal feeling (which is likely not appropriate to voice) is while I understand that there is an accepted theory presently ruling in scientific circles which insists that the only true wild horse still living is the Przewalski's horse and that the foundation upon which the preservation of the Sorraia rests (that this horse is a remnant from the indigenous wild horse of the Iberian Peninsula, and postulated by a few researchers to be a subspecies) challenges the accept theory and thus far cannot be definitively proven, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to rule on such a debate on this discussion page and edit out content and sources which may be controversial. I'll quote myself from an earlier entry, because I feel this is such an important thing:  "To leave out information that underlies the reasons preservationists, scientists and historians made these claims to begin with is more akin to censorship than encyclopedic reporting . I feel its important to provide the information, footnote the sources and allow those accessing the article to form their own judgments."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selona (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Selona, I think that would muddy the waters more. What we need is a summary of the criticisms posted in this review; a concrete list that can be directly evaluated. Only then can it be determined whether the article has any ongoing content disputes. If there are good responses to all of the reasonable criticisms posted here, then I will take Una at her word that she will be satisfied with the article, and consider the content dispute resolved.  If that is the case, we would thank Una and the other critics for bringing up substantive issues that have subsequently improve the article; precisely the point of this review process.


 * I am concerned, however, that Selona's response to some of these concerns cannot be supported by reliable sources, a standard that cannot be bent. It looked like some of the editors were tempted to water down some of these statements, and say things like "It is believed that..." or "Although there is no genetic evidence, it may be the case that..." There is a real danger for weasel words here. If there is no WP:RS evidence for the relationship to the Tarpan, it cannot be slipped in by adding a qualifier, and unpublished works cannot be alluded to.


 * My suggestion would be: if d'Andrade can be referenced as providing motivation for the conservation movement, you could raise the issue of the potentially ancient origins of the breed through that, but it would have to be clear that this was the opinion of a knowledgeable expert with no genetic evidence to support it. Further, if d'Andrade refers only to the age of the breed, but not to the relation to the Tarpan, that may have to be excluded until the new works are published. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I found 32 issues that were brought up in this review. Many of them are repeats, and many have been resolved. I did not include any of the issues brought up by Selona because I believe they were in response to criticisms, not in addition to them. The following list is public property. Edit it to leave a very brief summary of the concern, its current status, and your signature. --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thesoxlost, thank you for this list of issues. I appreciate how much work it can require.  How (where) would you like us to deal with them?  --Una Smith (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana, Sox, Selona, Kim and the gang: My quick run-through on the issues below, in no particular order: It's pretty clear from Lascaux and other sites that horses of some sort have been in Europe since the earliest humans could draw them on cave walls. No real argument there.  Not sure what's in the fossil record, but may not be relevant to this article.  I rather liked the language Kim used to describe the DNA dilemma.  IMHO, it's not weaseling to "teach the controversy." From my read here, there IS a theory that the Sorraia may be more closely related to primitive wild horses than are most domesticated breeds, but so far studies are inconclusive or incomplete. No harm saying that.  Next,  as for the "ancient breed vs landrace," that is really a PoTAYto/PoTAHto question because there is no uber-definition of either term in the horse world and thus they are pretty much synonymous unless someone can track a breed's pedigree record to some real specific human-directed program -- "breeds" as we think of them as a written stud book and pedigree documentation may have occurred in antiquity for brief periods and through oral traditions of various ethnic groups, but the way we do it today by documenting everything in writing is really a thing dating at most to about the 14th century.  My perspective on the Tarpan/grullo/equus species issue that that the dun gene is seen in almost all "primitive" horses, and everyone here needs to understand that the grullo color is nothing more than the dun gene on a black base gene, rather than a bay or chestnut gene, nothing more spectacular about that than all Friesian horses being black -- to oversimplify, black is genetically dominant over chestnut (red gene), but bay (Agouti gene) dominates over black, so over time, you will wind up with more horses with bay-based coat colors than black or chestnut (thus more bay (classic) duns than grullos, more skewbalds than piebalds, etc...) The bicolored mane, striping, dark muzzle, etc., are all dun traits.  Conversely, a light muzzle and underparts is not dun but pangare, which may also be a primitive coloring, but via yet another genetic process.  A horse may have BOTH pangare AND dun, but they aren't linked to one another. The compressed hair pattern on foals is a really unusual thing, I personally had never heard of that one before, it certainly doesn't occur in other domestic breeds, even those that throw dun.   And no, I don't think Selona is arguing that the Sorraia is a "bred back" animal like the Heck horse  It's its own critter!   Montanabw (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of the points made so far. A single group of researchers are CURRENTLY working on mDNA work for the Sorraia.  They THINK at this point there MAY be a connection to the "Tarpan" (No comment on the Tarpan can-o-worms).  HOWEVER, there is NO cite-able source for the claim at this point, as they HAVE NOT published any of their research/conclusions.  When/if that happens, then the results can be added to the article. UNTIL such time there is no citable "controversy" for one to "teach".  Thus the opinions, mine included, that the implied link should not be present in the article at this time.--Kevmin (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Montana and Kevmin, the 2002 PNAS study shows that the Sorraia is the closest relative to the prewalski horse with regard to mtDNA. I have not looked up nuclear DNA studies to see what they indicate with regard to the Sorraia (they place the prewalski in between the domestic), nor could I deduct from the chinese study where the Sorraia was positioned in that tree, as they have an additional mitochondial haplotype (A7). Anyway, the statement that the Sorraia has a relative close connection with the wild horses is not out of the blue, and actually supported by research. As for the Tarpan connection, nothing is published, so the statement has to be to wild horse in general. Maybe we can find some reliable sources that speculate about the tarpan connection (and I do mean here science articles, not popular articles). Otherwise, it should be limited to what the PNAS 2002 studies shows. Just my two cents. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PNAS 2002 meaning this? --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dana, I think I agree with Kim's conceptualization here, especially the part about keeping it to "wild horse" in general, and Kev makes a valid point that we don't want to overstate what has yet to be proven. And Selona rightly points out that the Sorraia looks NOTHING like a Przewalski's, though it does sort of phenotypically resemble a Tarpan a bit (though the Sorraia is more attractive, IMHO) You are lead editor here, can you glean some phrasing from the above to wordsmith a solution to this mini-crisis? Montanabw (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, how about this:
 * "Although they provided no evidence other than shared morphological features, multiple authors have stated that the Sorraia was likely a descendant of the Tarpan.(ref Bongianni, Hendricks and Edwards) Other authors have stated that the Sorraia has 'evident primitive characteristics', although they do not refer to a specific ancestor.(ref Luis, et al Inbreeding and Genetic Structure...) It was originally thought possible that the Sorraia could also be related to the Przewalski's horse (ref Bongianni), but recent studies have confirmed through mtDNA that the Przewalski is unrelated. (ref PNAS 2002 study) Current studies are ongoing to more precisely determine the relationships between the Sorraia and various wild horse types."
 * The exact PNAS quote is "we confirm that these types (refering to Przewalski mtDNA) are not found in any other breed", which to me would seem to mean that they have determined that the Przewalski and the Sorraia are not related. Let me know what you think.
 * Also, I believe that issues 20-22 have been dealt with above. I presented my rebuttal to Una's comments, as well as making a few tweaks to the Color section to make things clearer. I have not heard back from Una on these items, so I am considering them resolved. I also believe that issue 28 has been resolved, as d'Andrade had no intention of recreating the Tarpan, and was simply trying to preserve the group of horses he called "Sorraia". Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will say when they are resolved. Apologies for being slow;  Kim and Montanabw have been taking my time over on Talk:Tarpan and elsewhere, disputing points that are relevant here.  I am reading the 2002 PNAS article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Una, you can say when the issue is resolved to your satisfaction. That is true. But what matters for the GA review is that the article is stable. If there is consensus on all major issues discussed here, then the article is stable. Thus it is possible that you will not consider a matter resolved, and yet it the consensus determines that it is. This is why I tried to emphasize that all editors should work together here. You clearly have a strong opinion as to the content of WP, and you clearly have the goal of seeing those opinions incorporated here. To succeed in that goal, you will have to convince others that your positions are good and valid. Any editor that angers or alienates others is undermining their ability to do this. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I was only responding to Dana's remark (I have not heard back from Una on these items, so I am considering them resolved) and all I meant was to wait please.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana, it is almost resolved. The only thing I will argue is that the PNAS article shows something different. HWat needs to be distinguished is genetic distance form lineages. Yes, the prewalski is on a separate lineage, at the same time, the Sorraia is the closted relative, with the shortest genetic distance (namely 2 mutations), much shorter than between the Soraiia and many other breeds. So, I would rewrite it to:


 * "Although they provided no evidence other than shared morphological features, multiple authors have stated that the Sorraia was likely a descendant of the Tarpan.(ref Bongianni, Hendricks and Edwards) Other authors have stated that the Sorraia has 'evident primitive characteristics', although they do not refer to a specific ancestor.(ref Luis, et al Inbreeding and Genetic Structure...) The first genetic studies show that the Sorraia is probably closely related to the Prewalski's horse,(ref PNAS 2002 study) but the genetic relationship with the tarpan has not yet been studied."
 * I am not fully comfortable with this, as I have not yet checked the other studies using nuclear DNA, which could give a different picture. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If Kim and Dana reach agreement, I'm probably going to be OK with their consensus.  If Kim and Dana get at a sticking point, I may be able to spot the middle ground, but otherwise, I'll just let them hash it out.  I'm also adding a couple short comments to the list below to explain what the answers there need to be.   Montanabw (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are close. What now has to happen is that the lead gets changed such that it reflects this also. Currently, it is making a very strong interference about its wild ancestors, but we literally do not know anything about that other than a phenotypic resemblance and mtDNA link with the prewalski. To speculate about phylogeographical aspects in the lead based on nothing is just not okay. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I toned down the lead by starting the origin part with "It is said". Is that better?  --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think "it is said" are weasel words, while in reality, that is just speculation, so I think it has to go. Instead, we can allude to the well sourced statement that it is genetically relative closely related to the wild horses (PNAS 2002). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is said" is literally true, and it is the most interesting thing about the breed, so I think the story has to stay in the lead in some form. Let's let it cook some more.  In the PNAS article I cannot find a statement about Sorraia and P's horse.  Which page, column, paragraph is it on?  The article does say The Sorraias originate from a small group of 7 mares and 4 stallions obtained by R. d’Andrade near Coruche, Portugal, in around 1930, after he had seen a phenotypically identical wild population there in 1920, which was distinct from the local riding horse. According to d’Andrade (26), 5 of the 7 mares passed down mtDNA lineages.  All 18 sampled Sorraias have either of two A1 mtDNA types (61% A1 root type, 39% ancestral JSO41 type), which are quite unrelated to the D1 type predominant in the other Iberians. and Relatively recent bottlenecks are also reflected in the mitochondria, namely in the Senner, Sorraia, and Du¨lmener. The first two are locally regarded as indigenous.  Also, in Fig.2 the "root" node A6 of the network (not tree) is unresolved, with 14 branches coming off it, and the branches have no length, so degree of relatedness cannot be inferred from it.  The article says that P's horse is problematic, and indeed it is:  it has type A2 which is 3 nodes removed from A6 (the root).  A2 might or might not be connected to A1 (found in Sorraia and other breeds);  the network is unclear on that.  Bold lines are selected by the authors as a "postulated most parsimonious tree";  the residue are dotted lines.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Referring to the Sorraia as having been derived from a landrace (as defined in the wiki-link) of regional horses is as much an assumption at this point as it is to say they are a wild subspecies.   There is no definitive proof for either claim.  It would be more honest to write that the Sorraia may represent a wild subspecies or may be the offspring of a landrace of horses which developed in southern Iberia.  This review has impressed upon me that if this represents the use of weasel words, then it would be better to not say anything than to make a statement which cannot be definitively supported.  We do know that prior to d'Andrade gathering of remnant specimens of this morphologically primitive horse for preservation they have no history as a domestic breed.  Some texts relay that peasant farmers would sometimes capture individuals and use them as work horses--but we don't know that once these individuals were "domesticated" that they were ever released back into the wild (which would make them then "feral"), and if this were the case, we have no proof that d'Andrade's specimens were the offspring of this assumed theory.


 * Here is what we have that is properly supported with sources readers can reference in the list of sources: a) the Sorraia has no documented history prior to 1930 as a domestic breed, b) d'Andrade gathered remaining specimens of a morphologically primitive horse to establish a preserve with the scientifically driven conviction these horses were a subspecies of wild equine, c) the phenotype of the Sorraia is identical to Ebhardt's Type III Form of ancestral horse, d) modern science through genetic testing of mtDNA has determined the Sorraia is of one distinct genotype e) researchers continue to conduct studies to determine what genetic relationships the Sorraia may have with known wild equines as well as what genetic influence the Sorraia may have had on the development of domestic horses f) the genotype and phenotype of the Sorraia have been discovered in certain North American Mustangs g) the phenotype includes distinct conformational characteristics and primitive dun and grullo coloring.Selona (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have worked on issues 2 and 6, and will now pause to let others have a look. --Una Smith (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a reply to everyone, not just Una, but I'm placing it here for readability. Kim, I've placed your proposed wording on the genetic relationships into the article. If you find more information while going through genetic studies, please feel free to tweak it. Una, I reverted your rewording and movement of the striped foal information. This information is in the color section because there is a good chance that the striping could be confused with primitive markings. That's why it's in the color section - so that readers remember that we were just talking about primitive markings, but that this pattern isn't, it fades soon after birth. I've also reverted your changes to the lead, but then made some of my own that incorporated some of your work. Many of the changes you made (the landrace, the statement of Portugal vs what is now Portugal) had either not been discussed or were still in debate. Kim, I hope that between Una and I we've made some beneficial changes to the lead that make it more obvious that the genetic relationships are not known and are still being studied, without using weasel wording. Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Readability section header break
Above is getting tough to read and follow, so made a new header. As of the moment, I am OK with the current revision (Dana's). I jumped in and fixed a wikilink and a typo. In my humble opinion, if we can source the wavy hair on foals thing, it is cool and it would be fun to have it restored to the article, and I haven't seen that patterning on either wet horses or newborns, though if we can't source it, I do agree that per P:NOR sadly, it has to go. Selona's point that we have to be sure the lead doesn't make it sound like this is just a color breed is a good point. (Just like the Friesian is NOT a color breed, even if they happen to all be black). Progress is occurring. Montanabw (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, we've worked out the wording and sourcing of the foal coat stuff (it's now in the characteristics section, rather than the color section), so that should be good. And I've added a bit on the convex profile to the lead, to try to solve that point. I also added some wonderful pictures that Selona uploaded today. The copyediting and restructuring done by Kim and Thesoxlost has helped the article become more clear on the relationships. What do we still have left to do? (Basically, I'm not sure if other editors think the remaining issues below have been resolved or not...) Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a little wordsmithing on the lead, also clarified the dun thing. I hope I phrased things better without changing the nuance or the consensus of the group.  If I screwed it up, feel free to change.  Trying not to upset the applecart.   Montanabw (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave this summary of unresolved issues last!
 * Issue 1: "Breed of horse" ✅
 * Issue 2: ancestors of Sorraia ✅
 * Issue 3: grammatically complex ✅
 * Issue 4: "breeding stock" ✅
 * Issue 5: FAO or IUCN ✅
 * Issue 6: taxonomy? ✅
 * Issue 7: When in the Pleistocene?✅
 * Issue 8: All descend from 12 animals. ✅
 * Issue 9: section structure
 * Issue 10: bridge sentence ✅
 * Issue 11: mechanization ✅
 * Issue 12: wild Sorraia? ✅
 * Issue 13: Naming contradiction? ✅
 * Issue 14: Tarpan relationship #1 (explicit in text) ✅
 * Issue 15: Tarpan relationship #2 (implicit in text)
 * Issue 16: Landrace or ancient breed?
 * Issue 17: Bluptr's intro improvements #1 ✅
 * Issue 18: Bluptr's intro improvements #2 ✅
 * Issue 19: primitive horse piped to tarpan ✅
 * Issue 20: dark muzzle area (thin hair over dark skin dark hair due to dun gene and no pangare-MTBW)
 * Issue 21: foals born with compressed hair ✅
 * Issue 22: bi-colored manes ✅
 * Issue 23: land bridge removed ✅
 * Issue 24: Equus on the Iberian for how long? ✅ (Equus statement removed - Dana)
 * Issue 25: Restatement of #14 ✅
 * Issue 26: "Closely resembled" weasel ✅
 * Issue 27: Sorraia once = Marismeno ✅
 * Issue 28: Was the breed intentionally created to recreate the Tarpan? (No-MTBW)
 * Issue 29: Breed or landrace? Restatement of #16
 * Issue 30: Kevmin, Tarpan relationship #3
 * Issue 31: CClark, Tarpan relationship #4
 * Issue 32: KvdL, origin in lead is too strong and misleading ✅

GA review decision
Although this has been a rather dramatic review, I think it can be agreed by all parties that the article has been significantly improved upon as a result. New images have been added, the characteristics of the breed have been elaborated on, and the genetic discussion is greatly improved. There were a number of bumps along the way, but recently the editors--both critics and contributors--worked well together to come to a consensus on most issues and incorporate these views into the page. Many of the disagreements were subtle, although important. Given this cooperative effort, I see no reason to consider this article unstable. The discussions have not completed, but they never will; WP articles are all works in progress.

As of now, I believe this article meets the GA criteria, and should be given GA status with the following caviat: the changes to the article as a result of this review have been extensive. The review should not continue to be put on hold, but there are still a few minor things that need to be improved. Given the recent collaboration, I expect these will be resolved promptly. Assuming this, I will (perhaps through WP:IAR pass this article; but if these issues are not resolved promptly, critics of this page would be justified in calling for a reevaluation. The remaining issues are: first, the cooperation to fully resolve the disagreements should continue; all of the issues (up to #32) previously raised on this review page should be settled. Second, the major contributors should go through and copy edit the article. In addressing all the small details, some small grammatical and content problems have popped up. For instance, last paragraph of the history section does not mention the herds in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)