Talk:Florida Cracker Horse/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll have comments up soon. Sasata (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and continued to be used by Florida cowboys, known as "crackers" until the 1930s." They were known as something else after the 1930s?

Tweaked the punctuation on this a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The base genetics of the breed" How is base genetics different from regular genetics?
Changed to "foundation genetics", hope that helped. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me the info about height is repeated unnecessarily in the History section

Removed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During the American Civil War (1861–1865), both sides purchased large amounts of beef" both sides of what? (I know the answer, but don't think we should assume all readers will)

Changed to "both belligerents". Does this work better? Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sasata (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

link to purebred?
Done. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
according to this source, the FC contained the blood of the North African Barb.

comment: The Barb is the same as "North African Barb" -- and was part of the foundation stock of the Colonial Spanish horse, (most sources say Andalusian, Barb and Arabian) so it's implied. The source also is wrong in that the Jennet was never a "war horse" (see Horses in the Middle Ages. The Jennet was actually the gaited horse breed used for travel, not combat. Overall, the excerpts you provide suggest to me that this book is a poor source; the author didn't do her history homework. (It's also a bit annoying and imprecise that she refers to the lter English settlers as "white" -- as if Spanish people were not European. Sloppy, sloppy...) Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of the alternative names in the article text? Also, the previous source says it's "Chickasaw", not "Chicksaw"; it also mentions the name "Marsh Tackie"

Note below, the Marsh Tacky is a different breed, though of related ancestry. Fixed spelling of Chickasaw. The rest is Dana's call, not mine. Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Carolina Marsh Tacky is a different breed, as Montana says - the sources that say they're the same breed are using outdated information, as we now have DNA studies proving they're related but different. I thought it would be redundant to mention the names in both the infobox and the text, but if you disagree I can easily add them in to the text. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that there shouldn't be anything in the infobox that's not mentioned in the article... perhaps I am wrong about this? Sasata (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of the single-footed gait known in the South as a "coon rack"? Come on, this is vital information! :) (also mentioned here) and here)

All of these "singlefooting" gaits are simply lateral ambling gaits, they come up with a lot of fancy names to try and prove that one breed is VERY different from the other, but other than the fox trot (a diagonal four beat ambling gait) they all are 4-beat, lateral and either synchronous (1-2-3-4) or asynchronous (1-2, 3-4); and that's everything that varies other than speed (the rack and its variants -- the largo, the tolt, etc. -- are fast, the others are slow) and the style of leg action. Hence, the term "coon rack" is absolutely meaningless absent some description that goes beyond that of a lateral ambling gait. (Sorry to rant, I get in trouble in all the gaited breed articles for pointing out that the gaits are actually remarkably similar...(hee hee!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this source says they are used today for "Team penning, team roping, trail riding, endurance riding, and as mounts for historical reenactments."

See note below, existing text says something similar... Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this source (which also uses "Marsh Tackies") says they are characterized by "their extremely smooth gait"

Every single gaited breed likes to point out that their breed has an "extremely smooth gait." Ambling gaits are supposed to be smooth, that's why people like them. They ALL are smooth. (lateral ambling gaits being slightly smoother than diagonal ambling gaits, but other than that, the rest is breed propaganda). Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is it worthy of inclusion that one FC horse lived to be 46?

While uncommon, horses living into their 40s are not unheard of in many breeds. The oldest known horse lived to be 62, so this horse isn't even approaching the record. If you really want me to, I can include it, but I don't really think it's all that noteworthy. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata, this is Dana's article, so I'll let her answer most of your questions. However the Cracker Horse is somewhat different from the Marsh Tacky, which was the horse developed in the Carolinas. They have similar ancestry (the Colonial Spanish horse, but developed for slightly different needs. I'll fix a couple minor things. I don't know what Dana's sources say, but IMHO to imagine any gaited horse being used for team roping has got to be "our breed can do everything including leaping tall buildings in a single bound" PR stuff! (Team roping horses, particularly headers, need to be well over 1000 pounds to even think about holding a steer!) They also might be used for endurance riding, but they sure as heck aren't winning; none of the gaited horse breeds do, not over 100 mile courses, anyway. I'm all for versatility, but no breed can do it all -- I mean the draft horse crowd likes to claim their critters do barrel racing, and have the photos to prove it, but they also look ridiculous doing so and can't beat the breeds bred for it. Sorry if I'm ranting, I just have a raw nerve on that issue. Form to function, form to function...sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm just spewing out stuff I find in Google Books, I'll let you guys decide if it's crap or not :) Sasata (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Okey dokey! Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Montana and I have fixed or replied to all of your queries. I agree about the gait stuff - all of the single-foot ambles are basically the same (although you'll never get breed registries to admit that), and every registry likes to claim that they have the smoothest breed known to man. Montana is also correct on their uses - gaited horses are often used in endurance riding by people just out to enjoy the ride, but they don't win. You want an Arabian for that, although Anglo-Arabs, Mustangs and a few Thoroughbreds also hit the top ranks. Their uses are already mentioned in the Characteristics section, although I've tweaked it to make it more obvious that they're not used extensively for western events - you generally don't see gaited horses in these events, and heavier horses are better for the roping events, although the light, cat-footed horses are more often seen in cutting events. This is probably way more than you want to know, but... Let us know if any of our answers don't satisfy or if there are more issues. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with what you're saying about the gait (and indeed, would not be in a position to anyways) the fact is that several sources refer to the "coon rack" (even Dr. Molly), and I think it should be at least mentioned in the article; some people may come to this article specifically for this information. If you have a reliable source that reiterates your gait analysis, that could come right after it :)

Allright, I've added a sentence on the coon rack and repeated the information from the infobox in the body of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, almost done: just fix the seven dabs, and can you check out the licensing of the cow picture File:Florida Cracker cow and calf.JPG ? I can't see on the website where permission is explicitly given to use the picture in the manner that the uploader indicated, and it would probably be better if there was a link directly to the page the image is from (rather than just the main website). Sasata (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the dab links and replaced the image with one that has a proper license. I couldn't even find the existing one on the source website - they must have mixed things around since that image was uploaded. Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're good to go, passing the article now. Sasata (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]