Talk:Jutland horse

Cold-blooded?

The article previously called this horse breed cold-blooded. I think the writer means that the horses can withstand cold temperatures, but that term refers to a system which is not autothermosustaining, which is not the same thing. I have deleted the cold-blooded adjective, but have not replaced it. Any suggestions are welcome. Raymondwinn (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cold blooded" is a term of art among horse people for draft horses and refers to their calm "cool" temperaments. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The chestnut thing

If it matters, I learned during some of the work Countercanter did on chestnut (coat) that chestnut is in may ways the simplest and most basic coat color in horses, the most recessive color there is, and biologically created by a genetic mechanism that is equivalent to that which creates blonde or red hair in people. So, given that we are dealing with Scandanavia, it's interesting (maybe even mind-boggling and entering the Twilight Zone?) that even prior to the development of DNA testing, the people were looking for a form of recessive genetics in horses that paralleled common genetics in many of the local people. (and that it's genetic, not simply color, because they discouraged cream genes...?) Wonder if the red dog thing is another genetic parallel? Anyway, it just sort of struck me as interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment

Jutland (horse)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

 Request withdrawn

This article was recently listed as a good article. Its really a start class. Its a 7.5 kb start class article. It fails the GA criteria in that its supposed to be broad in scope. Sure we have a few short articles but this really does not provide a comprehensive, satisfactory coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Article length has never been a GA criterion. What information do you believe is missing in the article's coverage? Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There's not much more out there. I agree the thing looks dangerously short. But good faith for GAR (who is supposed to want the article to pass not to fail, blabla) would be to list some sources and some aspects of coverage. That's not asking for him to rewrite the article, but just to define what work needs to be done and scope it. I did a GS search and there were 8 hits (and one was like a picture book with a paragraph). It's definitely slim pickings, but will throw you what I can find (not meant like neener neener if I find something or the converse.) at your talk pageTCO (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you find anything let User:Dana boomer know. She wrote the article, I just did the review. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant the article talk page.

Some articles on very obscure topics may get away with being short if they are comprehensive. I'm not horse expert but 6 sources indicates lack of research and makes me doubt its comprehensiveness.... See A here. There are a mass of sources which could be used for it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, "comprehensive" is not one of the GA criteria. Compare this article to other similar ones like Suffolk Punch for instance, which is an FA, and then give some indication of what available information you believe is missing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Very strange words Malleus. A good article shouldn't be comprehensive? How can an article be "good" if it is poorly researched and not comprehensive?? "Broad in coverage" is a GA criteria... I've already added to this...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" is a criterion for featured, not good, articles. GAs should merely be "broad in their coverage" (as you say), a far lower standard. It means they should cover the main aspects of the topic. Ucucha 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that your "comprehensive" and length complaints, neither of which are relevant to the GA criteria, have been dealt with. You are now complaining that the article is poorly researched, but on what evidence? What available information do you believe to be missing? Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the article now has triple the number of sources compared to the version you passed, all from a mere ten minutes of study.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have not skimmed the sources to see that they have new substantive information that fills a gap in the article, you can't tell if the number means anything. I do know some of those horse almanacs are very "thin". TCO (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in shock at the two proposals I just saw for delisting reviews. (Jutland and that one on Sandy's page.) They are lacking a REVIEW by the delisting proposer! Shouldn't there be some sort of detailed and substantive set of comments to start off the party? To show that this is a worthwhile exercise? If I were GA-Sandy I would just shut this down and tell the proposer he needs to spend a couple hourse reading the article in detail, making a serious set of comments at some level of granularity, like you would get from Sasata or would get in a peer review or just a review review (like here: [1])

And I'm not even trying to defend the articles! They might be subpar, I don't know. And if the would-be delister doesn't know enough about the literature (and is unwilling to spend the time to brush up on the extent of it) then he should NOT propose a delist. He should recognize his handicap of not being able to make a sophisticated criticism and just stay out of it. But if he really wants to delist, he should invest the time that would allow others to see that a delist is needed and also to allow the article writer a better chance to save the article.TCO (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Look enough of the angst from you lot. I know a subpar article when I see one. Horse expert or not, 6 sources IS very poor standards for a good article, even if apparently a good article could even use just 2 sources and "pass the criteria". Having done some research into this now it is actually a lot more comprehensive than the length and original 6 sources let on. Luckily I've filled in gaps and tripled the number of sources and I'm now happier with it. Somebody can withdraw this review. I will consider making improvements myself to articles first in future irather than taking straight to review.. I just do not think articles with an extreme lack of sources and evidence of much research should pass GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, the original poster can withdraw requests themselves. Pitke (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22jutland+horse%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C47&as_sdtp=on

The Heredity article might be helpful and is free. TCO (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some good stuff in here, Dana. If you are not sciencey, we can help, but no push.TCO (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this section until just now. I have to go do a bit of housecleaning, but will be back on in a bit and will work on integrating some of this information. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've integrated some material that I felt was relevant from Genetic analysis, breed assignment and conservation priorities..., 2008. Not sure if this was the article you were talking about or not? If not, could you post the link to the article you were talking about? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about this one. but if the info is not helpful, don't include. there's only 8 returns in that google search, so would just check all 8 and see what you can extract! [2] TCO (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That one has nothing. Two mentions of the Jutland - one about their relationship to another breed that's already in the article and one saying that further study should be done on the Jutland, since they weren't included in this study. Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to invite the Myrrha main author to come over and help. He is a Danish native speaker. (Not text)

No text.

I'm here, so what do you want to know? Mottenen (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

http://kantate.dk/den_jyske_hingst.htm Danish site, but very informative. Should definitely add something on "The Jutland Stallion"; it's a pretty impressive monument standing at Østervold which is in the middle of Randers, Denmark's 6th largest city.Mottenen (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

An RS in English for the horse. http://books.google.com/books?id=IBPlAAAAMAAJ&q=randers+statue+horse&dq=randers+statue+horse&hl=en&ei=NnZATZ_IF8rKgQe97pCUAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAQ

I don't have access to that through Google books. Can you get me an extract? Also, why is this statue important? Is it the largest statue, the oldest statue, something notable? Otherwise, that there's a statue of them is basically trivia - there are statues of pretty much every breed, but that doesn't mean we include that in their articles. Dana boomer (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dana, let me see what I can do. I don't have any more access than you, but sometimes I wonder about google books, if they show one snippet at one time and a different one at other times. My impression is that the statue is a bit of a big deal. As you mentioned regarding size, it was the largest statue of any horse, (at least at time of making, not sure if still is). It's very prominent and gets a lot of notice. We need to find the right RSes to show it, but if you look at things like Flickr, like what Mottenen said, etc, it's not an obscure usage of the horse, but a very prominent one. I'll keep pecking away at it. Agree with your impression that we need to be supported in views, but I'm confident we can justify this after we do the research. Maybe we should ILL the book. TCO (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a source, reliable or non, that says the statue is unique in any way - definitely nothing on it being the largest statue (either at that time or ever). If you wish to get the book through ILL, go for it, but I don't plan to spend the time and money to get a bit of information that I'm not at all convinced needs to go in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the secondary literature available was very skimpy, a least in English. Some of the books only had a few paragraphs. If you could find some Danish story of the horse or the like that was more magazine or even book length that would be helpful. (And I don't know if this is taking us out of GA to FA land or from Start to GA, but it's worthwhile content work.)TCO (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mottenen, what makes that site (kantate.dk) reliable? From the translation I did, it looks like mainly a self-published travel site. I can't find anything about the authors or what makes them subject experts. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source I agree, but it got the main points right on the statue of the horse. Just thought it would be worth mentioning it. Mottenen (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

comparing to Clydesdale (horse)

I realize that is a much more notable horse (more written). But maybe if we look at that article, it will help us with where we should add content here? The one that jumps to me is the "use" section at the end (we are missing that).TCO (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to realize that reliable secondary sources for that may not exist. Clydesdales' are much more written about because of their connection to the breweries. Jutland's probably only number in the 100s in the US, compared to thousands of Clydesdales. And numbers would be similar in the UK. The likely spot they most exist is in their country of origin, and I'm betting they are not very numerous there either. Draft horses (or draught horses, for those Brits among us) are really really rare on the ground any more. This is a global problem for any developed country. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, without being an expert, the Jutland horses were famous in Denmark for their working power. They were used very much in DK in the past. Let me just search for some sources (they might all be Danish, but since this is an article on a primarily Danish breed I hope it's okay). I tell you, it has not played an insignificant role in Denmark. :) but please, give me a few days before jumping to any conclusions, thank you very much in advance. Mottenen (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Everything is connected! So cool that we work on one thing and then your Danishness is helpful elsewhere. Nothing wrong with the Danish sources for this article (very different from the Ovid situation). We'll use the Google translate for us (I can't make out Danish, really, German and French and Latin I can get by with cognates, but Viking-talk is too tough for me. Funny thing, was reading a no kidding 1792 paper on painted turtle and it was in Latin, what a hoot! Thought of you. But I really just needed some pictures from it. But I thought of using your classical training.) and then if there are little glitches, we can ask questions of you.

Mottenen, if you can find additional Danish sources, it would be great. I found a few, but since I don't speak Danish, it's kind of hard to search through websites! Just please, don't add sources just for the sake of adding sources, and make sure to watch out for the difference between the Jutland cattle breed and the Jutland horse breed - these were two of the issues with the recently added sources. (I know you didn't add them, just mentioning it for future knowledge). I doubt this article will ever be "comprehensive" enough for FAC, but the more useful information we can add, the better. Dana boomer (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Should I "unstrike" my comment about him not actually reading the refs?  ;-) TCO (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't get google translate to work, but was wondering on this website (http://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Heste/Avlsforbund/Sider/Avlsforeningen_Den_Jydske_Hest.aspx) we already reference has more info if you click around or is it just the one page. Like if it gives some info on showings, you could get a sentence or two describing frequcnesy or amount (or I guess just "at all") horse showings.

Danish sources would be very welcome.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where we reference that site? The only two Danish websites that are currently in use are the breed assocition and a livestock conservation organization, and this is neither. Also, how is this reliable? It appears to be a sales/business site, unless I'm reading it wrong? Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has to be a reliable source of course!.. Mottenen perhaps is better placed to find reliable Danish sources... From what I gather the above source you linked appears to be a Danish Agricultural Advisory website. From what I gather it looks like it should meet our sourcing requirements... There is something about the "Landsbrug" which makes it seem like a government source. Probably not, but it looks OK to me I think.. I've done a quick google translate and there is nothing in that source which you haven't already discussed in the article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the breeding organization's site. It might not be an RS but don't give up hope. Let's find out what it has. It might be an RS. It might not be an RS, but it leads to one. Or has useful info, that we can then back up somewhere else (for instance if it gave the timing or location of "the summer Jutland show", then we can get a Danish newspaper search.) Actually speaking of which. Um...let's do a Danish news search!

Umm...and a Danish periodical search.

And I wonder if there are magazines even in the states that would be better searched with a database or just journal specific search (i.e. not in Google scholar, since it's not hard core sciencey, but as a publication of the "sport" or "hobby" might still be a for pay RS. Like is there a Specialty Horse Breeding magazine or something?

Sorry, I know it sounds like a lot of prospecting. But I always find more than I espected to. So don't lose heart. We should just try some more things. Worst that is happen is we don't find something, but we're no worse off.TCO (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm less and less convinced that the above website is a reliable source. Well organized does not automatically equal reliable. The name of the organization running the website is "Knowledge Center for Agriculture" (nothing to do with government), and their description of themselves simply says "Knowledge Centre, Planning & Environment focuses on the development of agriculture and rural development. We are about where the ideas germinate and where farmers, communities and businesses want something new and different. We meet daily challenges of Danish farmers, their partners and suppliers." here. This gives no indication of why we should consider them a reliable source on the Jutland horse, and really sounds like a business's website, which are generally not considered reliable for anything other than basic facts about the business itself. Dana boomer (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as American or British breed/sport publications, there's no evidence that the Jutland even exists in these countries - no breed registries, articles, or even breeder's websites that I can find. There is also no indication, from my searches, that American and British horse magazines even really know this breed exists. If you can find articles on the breed, more power to you and obviously they can be integrated into the article, but I have exhausted my search abilities on English-language publications and haven't been able to find anything except what is already in the article. I look forward to seeing if Motennen can find anything in Danish-language publications. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The horse was mainly used in Denmark. 2. The linked website is a general database for the agricultural society in Denmark (in England you have the National Farmers' Union). The linked article is about the breeding association for the Jutland horse - so it is reliable, though not very informative. 3. I will definitely be able to find much more reliable sources on my local library. I'll return with books and websites. (prefer books) - but right now the time is 20 minutes to midnight here so there's not much I can do. Have patience guys, I will do my best. PS: TCO will you help me reformatting the references? I just need you to make it like Myrrha's and I can handle the rest. (If the main editor doesn't mind our reformatting of course) Thanks Mottenen (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you want to reformat the references? I'm not a particularly huge fan of the Harvnb formatting, as I think it just makes more clicks for the reader. Are you planning to have a lot of different references to various pages of the same book? If so, I can see splitting the book refs into short format in text and long format in a seperate section. However, if you're going to be only using each book a time or two, there's not really any need to split them. How about we see what refs you can come up with first? Take as much time as you need obviously, the article's not going anywhere. It's at GA-class, and at this point I am doubtful that we will get enough information to make it "comprehensive" enough for FAC, so there's no rush on adding information to it. Better that we make sure all of the refs are really reliable and useful. Another thing is making sure that we're not adding trivia to the article. For instance, if there is an annual show dedicated to the Jutland breed, then we can add a mention (one sentence or so) to the article. However, if there is just a big annual show in Denmark for all breeds, then it's really not something that needs to be added to the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just follow Dana's system of formatting. She has this article set up for what she wants and is an established user. If you get the info down and do the research and then there needs to be some cleaning up of your refs after you did all that work, I'm sure Dana can cover. TCO (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't hurt me if this has been tried, but we should also do a check of other language projects (especially Danish of course). I find with topics sometimes a different langauge will have some info already. this thing is so far along I doubt it...but since we are pushing to find stuff, just throwing that out there.

There's already a link to the Danish article, which is here. Not much to be got from that I don't think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the Danish article is where I found the Danish-language refs already in the article. As you can see, it's in worse shape than ours. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And we are stealing their best people! Go English Wiki!TCO (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And, we're not really "pushing to find stuff". The article's a GA, and it's going to stay that way whether we add more information or not. If more info turns up, great. If not, oh well. As I said before, it's more than likely not going to FAC, so there's no push and no hurry. Dana boomer (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

People are often very scathing about GA, or misunderstand what it's about, as I think happened earlier today for whatever reason. I've written several articles that I would never consider taking on to FAC, for all sorts of reasons; sometimes GA is all you can reasonably do. Whether this article could ever make FAC I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't be any kind of a priority for me if I were in your position Dana, given the parlous state of pretty much every other breed article. We need to bear in mind the law of diminishing returns. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For once I agree with Malleus! That's why I myself rarely develop an article beyond GA anymore, there's way too much to do with other articles!! FACs are incredibly demanding I find.... Presumably though the horse project has a list of "core" articles or high importance ones that are priority to develop to GA level.... Best of luck on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

images

1. This is CC-by-SA on Flickr. Is horse right horse? We could crop a bit to blow up. http://www.flickr.com/photos/celesteh/2294260939/

2. We should get a picture of that famous statue. There are a bunch on Flickr but all restricted. Could have Mottenen grab one. Or write someone and get a permission to upload (and yeah, I know GA says all pre-free, I'm not concentrating on that, just trying to build the article).

3. If there is anything else to photo, maybe Mottenen could do it. for instance here that webpage (even if not an RS, and I have not given up hope that it's a decent website, looks organized and not like a garage band) might direct us to a main breeder or the like. Mottennen could get pics and maybe that person can refer to RSes (books or articles or pamphlets).TCO (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Is this the right horse? TCO (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

First image, no idea. The angle is weird, so it's hard to see what size the horse actually is. It looks more like a pony build to me, but because there's nothing there for comparison (a person, etc), it's hard to see if the horse is tall or short. Second image, no. That's an Icelandic horse that just happens to be in Denmark. If other images can be found, awesome; we just have to make sure they're properly licensed and of the proper breed. There's lots of bulky chestnut horses floating around Scandanavia, so just because it's a draft horse in Denmark doesn't mean it's a Jutland. Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note with "EPO" (uploader of your Carlsbad wagon pic) at Commons. Asked him to get us a pic of the Randers Jutland stallion (largest horse statue in the world). He's Danish. Invited him to take a look and see if anything else he do to help.TCO (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

pretty pony pictures!

I was surfing the Carlsberg site (had this idea that they might be a source to content). Maybe we could write and ask for image licencing. Or even if they have some RS content.

[3], [4]

(they say "high res to download" and it is part of a "press kit" [5] so I excpect they might react favorably to a licence request for CC-by-SA 3.0). Might not even be needed, but I would do to be safe. I can put in the request if you don't know how to. I did it a lot with Painted turtle. It's just a canned email I send, not that much work really. Has lead to good things at times.TCO (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the value of either of those images would be? There's not a lot of room in the article for extra images, and two of the Carlsberg horses would probably be headed towards undue weight. The two images that I would like for the article are one of a horse in a color other than chestnut and one of a horse, standing properly, on good footing, facing left, without a bunch of stuff in the background. The latter is our ideal shot for the lead in most horse articles, but is hard to find. You're welcome to ask them, of course, but I'm not really seeing what the point is? Especially since both of those have horses at a rather weird angle. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's pass. Just tossing ideas out.TCO (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)