Wikipedia:Peer review/Percheron/archive1

Percheron

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 I would like to buff it in preparation for FAC. It had a GAN in 2010 and in 2011 was improved with the help of a French editor who has taken the article to FA status on that wiki. As usual, thoughts on jargon are especially appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a great article with which to get back into the reviewing groove. I will give more detailed comments later, but here are a few picked up from my initial skim-read:-

"After going through various incarnations and stud books, the current US Percheron registry was created in 1934." Lack of clarity: what actually went through "various incarnations and stud books"? Surely not "the current US Percheron registry".

Reworded this - there were a bunch of name and registry ownership changes before getting to the current status. Better now? Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is fine Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems more logical to put the Characteristics section after rather than before the History section, since History serves as the general introduction to the breed. But maybe there is an agreed format for horse breed articles?

The Characteristics before History arrangement is pretty standard in developed horse breed articles. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is part of the standardized organizational structure for the Horse Breeding task force of wikiproject Equine. Though there is an argument that history makes sense to put first chronologically, the section can be quite long, and what 10-year-old horse crazy girls want for their school essay is what the horse looks like! So putting the characteristics first, before history, makes a lot more sense. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I feel that the section needs an introductory sentence explaining that Percherons are bred in a range of sizes. I also see that the size discussion only covers French and American Percherons, although the British are named as "extensive users" in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I've added an introductory sentence and information on the British sizes. Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the Characteristic section I found the word "preferred" in the first sentence quite odd. I assume the meaning is "more common", and perhaps this would be a clearer form of words.

Changed - preferred by breeders. Is this better? Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a couple of "partiallys" which I think should be "partly"

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to demonstrate my urban British roots, but what exactly is a "hayride" (as in "I'll never forget the moment we kissed/The night of the hayride")? It sounds as though I might have missed out on something.

You've definitely missed something, especially if you've never been on a haunted hayride :) I've linked to the article on hayrides (which I was somewhat surprise to find we had). Basically something people in the country sometimes do for fun (or charge tourists quite a bit of money to do for fun!), although it was more common in decades past. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will book my ride if I am ever in your part of the world. The link helps. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the initial review, Brian! I look forward to your further comments. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian, and also thanks to Dana for all her hard work on this one! Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments:-

Characteristics

Looking at the 1904 photograph, and at File:Boulonnais-stlo.jpg, I am struck by the relatively short but extremely thick and powerful legs which seem to characterise the breed. I would have expected a mention of this in this section.

Thick legs and neck are draft traits, generally - The Percheron is actually considered a somewhat less heavy and more agile type of draft horse and I wonder if Dana should reexamine that French photo, its title says "Boulonnais" which is a different French draft breed. The commons narrative says it's a Percheron, but the original Flickr source is now gone. We can look at the breed standard as far as whether the breed is to be particularly noted for those traits, though. --MTBW

I took a look at the picture... Although this Flickr page was taken down, there is still another up from the same user on the same day of apparently the same horse, and it is described as a Percheron. Also the Haras National du Pin doesn't breed Boulonnais, only Percherons, so I would be surprised to see one included in a demonstration of the stud's horses. Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good to me; the French horses are somewhat heavier than the American ones, aren't they? That or just fat and cresty! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They are described as proud and alert..." Since the subject of the previous sentence is "the feet and legs", "They" will not do. Thus: "Percherons are described..."

Fixed -- MTBW

History

"...the former Perche province through which the river runs." What river is this?

You're right, there is no Perche River. I cut that bit --- MTBW

It's the Huisne River, mentioned earlier in the sentence. I have put this back and tried to clarify a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "ancestry" to "ancestors", and in this usage you should say "some time" rather than "sometime".
"Other possibilities were..." → "Other possibilities are..."
Theories do not "state"; they "suggest" or "propose" (or similiar)

Tried "posits". Hope that worked -- MTBW

These horses were almost completely gray, with paintings and drawings from the Middle Ages almost always showing French knights on gray horses." Needs tweaking, perhaps "These horses were almost completely gray; paintings and drawings from the Middle Ages almost always show French knights on gray horses."

Rephrased, a little differently altogether to fix nuance. Hope that worked-- MTBW

Rephrased again to avoid repetition of "gray" and "horse". Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

"also" in first line has no reference point - suggest delete

Done --MTBW

In a paragraph labelled "19th century" it is strange, in the second paragraph, to see "In 1966..."; "Since 1911..."; "By 1910..." etc, and a lot of stuff relevant to the First World War. So perhaps this is two separate subsections, or the title needs revising.

I moved stuff around, split between different sections and threw some material up into the characteristics section hope it's better. --MTBW

In the United States and Great Britain

"significantly" and "significant" in close proximity (I have copyedited a few other repetitions)
"resulting in..." → "which led to..." I suggest you split this sentence after "1898" because otherwise it gets too long and convoluted.
Is "gait" normally pluralised? "Gaits" reads strangely in British English

Can go either way, but here they were probably talking about the trot anyway, so made it a singular. --MTBW

20th century and today

Sold for francs in the US and Canada? Any ideas of what this meant in US dollars?
It seems odd to me, given that the main WWI battles were in France, that the British army imported 400 horses from France to Britain only to send them back to France for use in the trenches. Seems like a couple of unnecessary channel crossings; maybe you should recheck the source to see if they were actually "imported"?
"and this organization is still functioning today" - needs to be time specific, e.g. "as of 2012"
"This popularity was attributed to the breed's "strength, energy, activity, robustness and endurance." Opinion needs specific attribution as well as citation
"Breeding stallions were selected to be the largest and heaviest possible". They weren't selected "to be the largest..." etc, they were selected because they were the largest. Suggest flip the sentence: "The largest and heaviest horses were selected as breeding stallions".
Please check on the wikilinking of "gray", which occurs several times in the early parts of the article and again here.

Fixed--MTBW

"By 1988 there were 1,088 Percherons in the United States and 2,257 in 1998". Clumsy formulation, needs redrafting, e.g. "There were 1,088 Percherons in the United States in 1988; by 1998 this had risen to 2,257."

Fixed--MTBW

I assume that 2009 is the latest year for which registry figures are available. As this is now several years ago, the use of the present tense thereafter is inappropriate. Thus "As of 2009, the Percheron Horse Association of America had horses registered in all 50 states, and had nearly 3,000 members, with around 2,500 new horses being registered annually."

Fixed--MTBW

Uses

"Percherons are used for parades, sleigh rides and hayrides..." - are we still in France, or does this ned to be prefaced by "In the United States..."? Perhaps reorder the paragraph so that all the French/European information is together, and all the US information is likewise consolidated.
A point of general stylish consistency: decide whether you are going to use ndashes with gaps around (per penultimate sentence), or mdashes without gaps (per earlier in the article).

That's about it on prose and general content. Check out my minor copyedits. As I won't be watching indivdual review pages, please ping my talkpage if you have any isues arising from this review, or if you would like me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for posterity, I think that Montana and I have addressed all of the above comments. Thank you very much for your review, Brian! Dana boomer (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]