Talk:Jutland horse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

"The Jutland is typically chestnut in color, although they may also be bay, gray, black or roan ...". I know what this is trying to say, but right now it's suiggesting the possibility that a Jutland can be chestnut and bay, for instance. The problem is at least partly caused by the presence of that "also".

Removed the "also". Should I do more?

"In the early 1900s, most Jutlands were bay or black ...". That seems rather strange to me. So just for a few years in the early part of the 20th century bay or black were the predominant colours? Why are they not still? Is there selective breeding for chestnuts? Why?

Scandanavian countries like chestnuts for some reason - they consider it the "national color" of a few breeds and selectively breed for it. The Finnhorse (from Finland) is another example of this. I've expanded on this a bit more, don't know if I made it better or worse.

They also tried to make the Finnish Hound uniformly red... A failed attempt. I once read something that explained this chestnut/all-red craze, if memory serves it was supposed that these were the original colours of the local strains, and any other colour had been gained via crossbreeding. Train of thought went on to suppose that getting rid of the "foreign" colour would get rid of the foreign influence altogether, thus all-red = purebred = original = superior. Can you spot 5 counterlogical points there? ;) The original "true" type was of course ultimately better in all ways, and the colouration was magically linked to the awesome. Compare people these days imagining that dun or buckskin horses are somehow more in touch with the Ur Horse. Pitke (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... a wide chest and straight shoulder". Is the singular "shoulder" a horsey thing, or should it be "shoulders"?

The singular shoulder is a horsey thing, but I can change it to plural if you would like. When talking about horses, you most often describe the angle of their shoulder ("a straight shoulder" or "a sloping shoulder") as singular, unless talking about a different between the two shoulders ("the mare's shoulders slope at different angles"). Plural would work just as well, though, I guess.

If it's a horsey term then I'm fine with it, no need to change it. As Ealdgyth will tell you, I wouldn't even need a postage stamp to write down what I know about horses. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Their temperament is described as calm yet energetic ...". By whom? Could "described as" just be dropped?

Done.

"The Charlsbad horses still travel to many shows and festivals ...". Presumably "Charlsbad" is an alternative name for the Carlsberg Brewery, but it's not immediately obvious.

That was actually just an example of my poor spelling. Should have been "The Carlsbad horses..."

... they are still found at horse shows and in urban capacities." I'm struggling to envisage what an urban capacity is. Not too happy about "found at horse shows" either, which rather implies that one just stumbles across them quite by chance.

"...still seen at horse shows and working in urban areas." Better?

History

"Although its early origins are not fully documented ...". Isn't there some redundancy here? How can its origins be other that early?

Done.

"... it is thought that the ancestors of the Jutland were used by the Vikings during the early 9th century". By whom is it thought?

Tweaked.

"... most Jutlands in existence today can be traced back to two of his sons". I'm slightly queasy about the phrase "in existence" in this context. "Would something like "alive today" work?

Done.

"... between then and 2007 22,000 horses were registered". Those two adjacent numbers are really jarring.

Moved around.

"... 405 stud farms were devoted to their breeding in Denmark alone". This implies that there's something missing here. Are Jutlands not bred/popular elsewhere in the world today? Ever?

Removed "alone". As far as I can find, few, if any, Jutlands have been taken out of Denmark. I can find no evidence of breeding farms or breed registries outside of Denmark, and they are definitely not "popular" and are actually almost unknown in the majority of the world.

"One Danish breed conservation organization estimates there to be around 1,000 living Jutlands". The present tense there is obviously going to age. "As of 2011" or similar?

Done.

That's all I have on this really rather nice little article.

Thank you very much for the review! I think I have taken care of everything above - please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for me. Your little green thingy is in the post. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.