Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banker horse

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [1].

Banker horse

Nominator(s): Yohmom (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it appears to have met FA criteria. Yohmom (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notifying, user is part of the AP Biology project. Ceranthor 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I've helped a bit with finding sources in the past. Also, this [2] source is by a noted equine writer and vet, so it qualifies under the SPS guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. review from Truco (talk · contribs)

Dabs (toolbox)

Check out fine.

External links (toolbox)

~~There is a dead link that was just found today.~~

Fixed.--Yohmom (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...are found up to speed.--₮RU CӨ 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

~~The following refs are duplicated, they should have a ref name instead.~~

~~{{Harvnb|Hendricks|1995|p=63}}~~

~~{{Harvnb|Prioli|2007|p=12}}~~--₮RU CӨ 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Yohmom (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...are found up to speed.--₮RU CӨ 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juliancolton/dash –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is a regretful oppose, because I enjoyed the article when I read it at peer review, ansd saw little wrong with it. However I, and another reviewer, both commented that the lead did not summarise the whole article, as required by FA criterion 2(a). These comments are merely marked in the review "not done", with no explanation of the decision to ignore them. Since the lead at present clearly does not summarise the whole article, I feel I have no choice but to register an oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns in the peer review are marked as "not done" because I had not finished addressing the concerns at the time the review was archived. They certainly were not ignored. Information has been added since the concerns were posted; however, please feel free to point the additional areas that you feel are lacking in the lead. --Yohmom (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the breed history summary in the lead should at least mention the non-Spanish theory related to Grenville. The Land use controversies section doesn't appear to be mentioned in the lead. Since the Management and adoption section is so significant in the article, I would expect this importance to be reflected in the lead, with mention of such management problems as the Shackleford infection. These are relatively easy matters to fix, and I look forward to striking my oppose as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am pleased that my concerns regarding the lead have been fully addressed, and I am happy to strike my former oppose. I am now happy to support the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Dr pda. I reviewed this article at peer review. Most of my concerns were addressed during that process. The last major one was the lead, which as noted above has now been expanded. Dr pda (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This interesting, well-written and nicely illustrated contribution satisfies all the FA criteria. Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any comment about taxonomy and classification. I suppose that Bankers are a type of Equus ferus caballus? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Axl, they are a horse breed, not a subspecies. Like a German shepherd dog, I don't thing Yohmom needs a taxonomic classification in a breed article? Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few words to the first sentence, and I wouod think that that would take away any possible confusion on this, as I can see that if you are not familiar with horse breeds, it could be equally a horse species. Many people know what a German Sheppard is, but how many people know what Samoyed is. So, lets clarify it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief description of behavior: grazing and water supply. Do the Bankers hang out in herds? What happens if people approach the feral horses? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mating habits? Gestation? Time to maturity? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axl, all info on gestation and such is in horse. These are horses. Not sure if that sort of thing is needed? Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment, as I contributed some help and thus cannot be an evaluator on the article, but nonetheless, WikiProject Equine wholeheartedly supports this effort. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Montanabw. Still, some extra information about behavior would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be relevant the information would have to be specific to Bankers, not generic to horses. So far as I can tell specific behavioural characteristics (like gait) are already covered in adequate detail. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that case I support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.