Wikipedia:Peer review/Horse/archive2

Horse

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a group of us (User:Ealdgyth, User:Montanabw and myself, mainly) have been working very slowly over the past few years to get this to FA, and we think we're about there. The article is currently at GA, and has been looked over by quite a few horse editors, but we'd like to get some (or at least one) outside opinion on it before we run the gauntlet at FAC. Comments specifically on jargon, structure and overall readability would be most helpful, although comments on the article as a whole will also be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Please bear with me if the review takes a little time! Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Since Cryptic C62 has decided to review the article, and it would make little sense to have two long reviews going at the same time, I will leave the field to him. If I'd known that he intended to do this review, I could have saved time spent making many of the same points as he has made. For what they are worth, here are my notes on the early sections:-

I see nothing wrong with redundant review points. It can be a helpful indicator to the authors that the points are highly visible and relevant, not just pedantic nitpicks. Please, continue your review. A topic of this magnitude deserves more eyes than just mine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thank you very much for the comments. For what it's worth, I would love to see any further thoughts you have on the article; as Cryptic said, an article this large can use as many eyes as it can get. However, I know that PR, FAC, and basically every other review process on WP are backlogged, so if you feel your time can be better used elsewhere, I understand completely. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead introduces the range of the subject well, but the prose needs a little further work. Too many subclauses make for difficult reading, e.g. "These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses that have never been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's Horse, a separate subspecies, and the only remaining true wild horse". And even longer: "Horse breeds are loosely divided into three categories based on general temperament: spirited "hot bloods" with speed and endurance; "cold bloods", such as draft horses and some ponies, suitable for slow, heavy work; and "warmbloods", developed from crosses between hot bloods and cold bloods, often focusing on creating breeds for specific riding purposes, particularly in Europe."
We'll probably tackle the lead last, after we fix everything else. Thanks for mentioning where we need to focus. --MTBW

Biology

The introduction to this main section reads: "Specific terms and specialized language is used to describe equine anatomy, different life stages, colors and breeds". The "is" should be "are", as you mention specific terms and specialized language. But you could simplify to "Specific terminology is used..."
Breeds are actually dealt with in a different subsection of the article, and life stages are discussed before anatomy, so you may want to reword the opening statement anyway.
Made temporary tweak for now. --MTBW

Lifespan and life stages

"Regardless of a horse's actual birth date, for most competition purposes, an animal is considered a year older on January 1 of each year in the Northern Hemisphere[6][9] and August 1 in the Southern Hemisphere". For clarity and grammar I would slightly amend this: "Regardless of a horse's actual birth date, for most competition purposes a year is added to its age each January 1 in the Northern Hemisphere[6][9] and each August 1 in the Southern Hemisphere". And I would say "the horse's actual calendar age" at the end of the paragraph.
Fixed some. We say "animal" sometimes because if we say "horse," then the mule and pony people get mad at us and say we are too horse-POV. (smile) --MTBW
"Some people, particularly in the UK, refer to a stallion as a 'horse'". I'm not sure why it's necessary to point this out in relation to stallions. Most people over here also call foals, colts, fillies, mares etc "horses", as it is by no means always obvious to non-horsey people what is the correct classification, and "horse" is considered generic.
Precisely the problem, some people use the archaic form "horse" to refer to males, hence the completely illogical phrase "horse colt" --MTBW Follow up: I tweaked this a little, may not have helped, OK to revert. --MTBW

Size and measurement

The second paragraph is very longwinded, when a much simpler explanation is possible. Thus: "The English-speaking world measures the height of horses in hands and additional inches. One hand equals 4 inches (101.6 mm); thus '15.2 h' is 15 hands plus 2 inches, signifying a total height of 62 inches (157.5 cm). The abbreviation 'h' for hands is sometimes given as 'hh' for 'hands high')." Does that leave anything out?
Yeah it does. People think the radix point is a decimal if we don't. This was a carefully crafted section that ended an edit war. --MTBW
I notice that for heights, the imperial measurement is converted to metric, but for weights the metric is converted to imperial. Should this not be made consistent?
The hands template governs height, hands were based on imperial measurements, hence why they come first, and it was a real effort to make it work, so we'd hate to tweak it. I think there was once an edit spat over being US-centric for putting imperial measurements first, but I can't remember where or when. If you think it is quite important, we certainly can tweak weight to do imperial measurements first. Please advise? --MTBW

Ponies

I recommend a slight reorganisation of material. The subsection should begin with a general statement about how a pony differs from a horse. Thus: "The distinction between a horse and pony is partly a difference in height, but also covers aspects of phenotype or appearance, such as conformation and temperament." Then follow with the height details, and begin the second paragraph "Ponies often exhibit..."
Encyclopedic sentences should not begin "In fact..."
"While the Shetland pony stands on average 10 hands (40 inches, 102 cm),[33] the Falabella and other miniature horses, which can be no taller than 30 inches (76 cm), the size of a medium-sized dog, are classified by their respective registries as very small horses rather than as ponies" - two many sub-clauses in a single sentence, needs some reworking.

Working on it . -- MTBW Follow up': Done, see if that helped. --MTBW

Colors and markings

I had understood that horses coloured black and white were termed "piebald" and horses coloured brown and white were termed "skewbald". Perhaps it's my ignorance; but I see no mention of those terms here.
Only in places where they use UK English, not the states. Will look at it though. --MTBW Follow up: The term "pinto" covers piebald, skewbald and tricoloured horses, I am not certain if UK English contains a generic term for all three, though I've heard "spotted" -- except that would confuse people with leopard complex spotting... anyway, please advise of where you think we should go with this? --MTBW
Up to the second paragraph of this section I found the article generally easy to understand, with good explanations on all significant points. Suddenly it's got rather technical and obscure: "One of the first genetic relationships to be understood was that between recessive "red" (chestnut) and dominant "black" allele that is controlled by the Melanocortin 1 receptor, also known as the "extension gene" or "red factor..." etc. The change of style may be confusing to the general reader.
We can try to smooth that out. We did major work on the color articles and their genetics; it's the hot topic in horse land these days. Will try to put it in English. --MTBW Follow up Did what I hope was a whack at a translation into normal language. Will need to run that by the genetics gurus to be sure I didn't screw up the nuance, but if all want to look and see, I think it is now more understandable and aligns with the sources better. --MTBW

Reproduction and development

Two unnecessary "alsos" and one unnecessary "actually" in one sentence: "Also, if the horse is larger, its bones are larger; therefore, not only do the bones take longer to actually form bone tissue, but also the epiphyseal plates are also larger and take longer to convert from cartilage to bone." Suggest lose them.
Word missing: "as young age two in some countries" → "as young as age two..."

Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

It would be an extremely impressive feat for this article to reach FA, and a quick glance at the page view statistics reveals how many readers would benefit from such an effort: Over 200,000 per month! With that in mind, I intend to provide a rigorous prose review to insure that the article is accessible to all of us non-horses.

(starting in Biology; will return to the lead later on)

I find it very odd that Biology dumps the reader directly into Lifespan before answering the very basic question: "What is a horse"? I think that it would be wise to give the Biology section its own mini-lead, as there is a *lot* of information to sift through here. The current intro, "Specific terms and specialized language is used to describe equine anatomy, different life stages, colors and breeds," doesn't really cut it. Remember: an encyclopedia should seek primarily to teach, and only secondarily to inform.
Regarding File:Points of a horse.jpg, I find it somewhat confusing that the subject of the image is wearing some sort of headgear. Does "poll" refer to the upper strap, or to the top of the horse's head? The same confusion also applies for "muzzle". Ideally, I would like to see the same image recreated on a horse that is not adorned by any man-made garments.
We have a difficult time finding points of the horse charts that are both accurate, sourced, AND free use. I realize the horse is wearing a halter, and I will ask the editor who created it if the halter can be photoshopped out, but we really don't think we'll find a different or suitable free image that is accurate and can be sourced; we had to create this one ourselves as it was... --MTBW
I figured that this would not be an easy task, which is why I said "ideally". Perhaps this should just be something to keep in mind if another suitable image comes along. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary to list Hand (length) as the "See Also" for Size and measurement. The article is linked to in the very first sentence of the second paragraph. Furthermore, the only relevant piece of information is that the hand is equivalent to 4 inches, which is already explained in this article.

Removed - DB

"This point was chosen because it is a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head or neck, which move up and down." Citation? Chosen by whom, and when? Perhaps "is used" would be better than "was chosen". Also, is it not true that the withers can also move up and down? Surely if one were to attach the horse to a crane, the entire animal would move upwards, not just the head and neck.

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""15.2 h" is 15 hands (60 inches, 152 cm) plus 2 inches (5.1 cm)" Criminy, there are six measurements in that tiny little chunk of text! I would greatly prefer to simplify the last sentence as much as possible: Thus, a horse described as "15.2 h" is 15 hands plus 2 inches, for a total of 62 inches (157.5 cm) in height.

Changed to your proposed wording. - DB

~~Why is hands linked five times in Size and measurement? Linking the first instance should be sufficient.~~

It was the default function of the conversion template that we use. I've tweaked the templates to remove the excess linking. - DB

"Heavy or draft horses are usually at least 16 to 18 hands" This construction does not make sense. "at least" implies that the number that follows will be a bare minimum, and that many of the instances will be larger than that minimum. If that's the case, what is the significance of 18 hands? It is certainly not the bare minimum, since that is covered by 16 hands. Two possible interpretations: "Heavy or draft horses are usually at least 16 hands" or "Heavy or draft horses are usually between 16 and 18 hands". Clearly there is some ambiguity here.

Fixed - Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns about the density of measurements in Size and measurement also applies to the Ponies section. Not only is it unnecessary to provide three different units for each measurement, it is also somewhat confusing to do so, particularly the consecutive parentheticals.

I edited to remove some of the parentheticals. However, the three units of measurement is something that has been discussed through an RfC and it was established there that the three-way conversion is needed, in order to cover the main method of measuring horses (hands) as well as the two main world systems of general measurement (inches and centimeters). If you have suggestions on ways to remove density overall (as with the point above, where I changed the article to your suggested wording), I would love to hear them. I know that these sections are particularly dense on measurements, and so any help would be appreciated. - DB

"Some breeds which typically produce individuals both under and over 14.2 h consider all animals of that breed to be horses regardless of their height." So... the breeds consider the animals? Perhaps the first "breeds" was meant to be "breeders"?

Breed registries. I tweaked it, let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of Ponies implies that the distinction between ponies and horses is based entirely on height, but the second paragraph suggests that the distinction exists on the hereditary level. The two notions are somewhat contradictory, and as of yet there is no clear resolution to this contradiction. It may be necessary to employ three paragraphs: one to explain that there exist multiple classification schemes, one for the height scheme, and one for the phenotype scheme.

I've reworked the opening sentences of both paragraphs to hopefully explain things better. Basically, height is just one aspect of differing phenotypes. Let me know if it's more understandable now. - DB

And I did further tweaks --MTBW
This definitely helps, but there's one thing that is still a bit unclear: how do ponies relate to horses on the taxonomic level? Is the pony a subspecies, variety, or form of the horse? Or just a subcategory with no rigorous taxonomical definition? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ponies and horses are taxonomically identical, both equus ferus caballus --MTBW

This fact should be made clear in the Ponies section, ideally in the first sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but we may need to source the statement, I'm at work and don't have my horse books here. --MTBW

~~"In fact, small size, by itself, is sometimes not a factor at all." Avoid phrases like "in fact" per MOS:OPED.~~

Reworded. - DB

~~"These colors can be modified by at least ten other genes to create all other colors." Really? I've never seen a blue horse before.~~

Then you've apparently never seen a blue roan before :) Anyway, reworked a bit. - DB

"Also, if the horse is larger, its bones are larger; therefore, not only do the bones take longer to actually form bone tissue, but also the epiphyseal plates are also larger and take longer to convert from cartilage to bone." also not only also also...?

Ick. Reworked to remove all of the "also"s, although I left the "not only". - DB

Try to avoid extremely short paragraphs, such as that which begins Reproduction and development. In this particular case, one question that is left unanswered is: do wild horses have a mating season, or do they just bump and grind whenever they please?

We spun off a lot of material into horse breeding, Equine anatomy, mare and stallion. Not sure how much to spin back; the article is very, very long as it is? Can you suggest how much detail we really want/need here? The short answer is that mares do go into an anestrous (not interested in boys) period during the winter. -- MTBW

I'm not all that concerned about bringing back material, I'm just offering suggestions on how to deal with the very short paragraph. I usually prefer to add a sentence or two rather than delete/merge the paragraph, though in this case the first two paragraphs of Repro. and Dev. could probably work as one larger paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking --MTBW

Another question that is unanswered by the Reproduction section: do mothers care for their young? If so, for how long?

Ditto, and the problem is that it varies without a hard and fast answer -- many horse breeders wean foals from the mares at four months, some at 5-6 months, nearly all by 7 or 8, but there are cases in the wild of mares letting their yearlings nurse alongside of the current year's foal. -- MTBW Follow up: Tweaked this and added source. --MTBW

"For endurance riding competition, horses are not deemed mature enough to compete until they are a full 60 calendar months (five years) old." How is this in any way relevant to the biology of horses? This sentence is an excellent example of a symptom that permeates the article: much of it is written as though the horse is an aspect of human society, rather than a species of animal.

In this paragraph, we're trying to show that different scientists, horse experts and sports have different ideas on when horses mature. Some groups (racing people, including many of the scientists who work in the sport) are convinced that horses are mature enough for heavy work as young as two, while other groups (endurance riding, also many draft horse breeds) are equally convinced that horses should be five or older before they begin even lower levels of competition. Thoughts? - DB

Ha ha! That's why we are asking for a peer review from a non-horse person! The horse, you see, IS a huge component of human society, with major changes in human culture, particularly language and warfare, linked quite clearly to horse domestication. But seriously, the example of the endurance horse is provided as evidence of how long it takes a horse to actually be physically mature, as the horse industry often starts horses in work at age 2, when they look all grown-up but are not. Age of starting young horses is a hotly debated topic amongst horse aficionados and any hard and fast "rules" are simply, well, not. --MTBW

What I've learned from this PR page is that the maturity of horses is a subjective issue, and one whose interpretation depends largely on the activities that the horse will engage in. The Repro. and Dev. section, on the other hand, presents a series of factoids and benchmarks that appear (on the surface) to be wholly unrelated to the critter's biology. I suggest trimming down the number of examples used in the article and focusing more on what you've told me here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes, did these address your concerns? If not, can you point me at the sections that still need more work?

The third paragraph does indicate that there are several different standards for horse maturity, but the purpose of this is lost since it hasn't been made clear that horse maturity is a contentious issue to begin with. In fact, the second paragraph does exactly the opposite: "Horses four years old are considered mature". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit random and out-of-order, but why does the infobox claim that "48" is a synonym for "horse"?

It means there are 48 synonyms for horse. I agree it's a bit confusing, but do you have any ideas for changing this without actually listing all of them? Or should we go ahead and list all 48? - DB

Listing all 48 would be a waste of space, unless we were to use a collapse template. A more elegant solution might be to pick out the more common synonyms, though that might be bordering on WP:OR. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure we can find all 48. Nag, hayburner, critter... :-P --MTBW

"Horses have a skeleton that averages 205 bones." Averaged across the lifespan of the horse? Or averaged across all adult horses? In other words, does this number vary with age?
Averaged across all horses; basically some breeds/horses have slightly more or fewer thoracic, lumbar or coccygeal vertebrae, and occasionally (if they have fewer thoracic vertebrae) sets of ribs may vary by one set or so. No, the number does not vary with age, any more than any other animal -- I don't think anything grows or loses actual bones. It's complicated, because it's just sort of a weird thing that happens, they used to think it was linked to certain breeds until they did skeletal studies showing that it isn't consistent even within certain breeds prone to fewer vertebrae. Suggestions as to how we can clarify this without it getting too complicated? --MTBW
How about just slapping "adult" at the beginning of the sentence? This clarifies that the number of bones does not vary with age, which is one of the possible (mis)interpretations of the sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat odd that Anatomy only features comparisons with humans. What I often see in other critter articles is comparisons between the subject critter and other critters that are similar. Bat, for example, compares bat wings with bird wings, a practice which makes more sense (to me) than comparing bat wings to human wings.
The relevant comparison is to other mammals, then, I think; with bipeds such as humans being the most different (grin) -- they are always comparing the horse's hoof to the human fingertip, it's the interesting stuff (smile) horses also have no gall bladder and no clavicle --MTBW
I think the most relevant comparisons would be with mammals that appear to be structurally similar: zebras, camels, perhaps even other animals that serve vital roles in human society, such as dogs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Stallions and geldings have four additional teeth just behind the incisors" Stallions have nuts and geldings don't, so why not replace "stallions and geldings" with "males"? Or am I missing something here?
You are right, I wonder if the next person will ask us if it's both stallions and geldings, though?? :-P --MTBW
"Therefore, the incisors show changes as the horse ages, but a distinct wear and growth pattern, and changes in the angle at which the chewing surfaces meet." This can be made clearer and more concise. "As the horse ages, the incisors show a distinct wear and growth pattern, as well as changes in the angle at which the chewing surfaces meet." Does that accurately capture what the original sentence was trying to convey?
We may have to change the whole way that is phrased. The teeth actually erupt, they are full length once the adult teeth develop, they don't "grow" like those of rodents, and in fact, very old horses lose their teeth because there is no more tooth left to erupt. I'll take a whack at that. --MTBW
When converting to several different measurements,Ponies uses a comma: (56 inches, 142 cm). Digestion uses a semicolon: (8.4 imp gal; 10 US gal). These should be made consistent. I don't have a preference either way.
Thank the hands and convert templates, I think. If that's what's making it happen, we are helpless... but I'll check that too. --MTBW

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Cryptic! I've replied to a few of your comments above - more later, possibly tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Update - More done, more later :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Cryptic. We'll keep plugging away. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]