Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 4 January 2008

Template:WikiProject Horse breeds

Arabian horse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

Arabian horse received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:Maintained

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Genetic diseases

Why is it necessary to detail genetic diseases in other breeds? The article is supposed to be about Arabians, and that detail on other breeds makes it a tougher read. Can't we just mention that other breeds share these issues? -- But|seriously|folks  06:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying in terms of simplifying the article. The problem is "horse politics." Arabians are an extremely controversial breed, and one accusation is that they have been genetically weakened from excessive inbreeding, with detractors pointing to the existence of genetic lethals as proof. Thus, noting that completely different genetic lethals exist in certain other breeds does two things: Disarms the detractors who want to "slam" the breed, and also keeps hardcore Arabian aficionados from blanking the entire genetic disease section because they want to pretend the problem doesn't exist. I'll look at the text and see if it can be tightened up some, though. I am sympathetic to anything that un-bloats the article overall, it's just figuring out how to do it. (sigh) Montanabw 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked for a source that says something along the lines of "Arabians are no more susceptible to genetic disease than several other breeds", or words to that effect? I think that would be a better way to address it, if such a source exists. -- But|seriously|folks  07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there IS a source, but the only one I know of is an article I co-authored for a national magazine, actually, but what's the rule on original research? A no-no, correct? Montanabw 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, however, I will see what can be done. Montanabw 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest reversion

I've reverted a paragraph that was unsourced, and it turns out it was a copyvio from this site. Keep an eye out for it reappearing. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, why this article that gets the romanticized crapola? I will say that this and the Friesian horse articles are two where vandal patrol for peacock words is the biggest overall problem. To that extent, I'd say you and I are well-suited to be the people to remove Peacock edits HERE! <grin> You want fun--or not--read archive one of this talk page, there was SOOO much garbage in here once, this article was once SUCH a mess! Its cleanup was my first GA, and thanks so much for helping to keep it that way! Montanabw 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aussie Ayrabs

I can supply a nice image of Hector if needed??Cgoodwin (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is a little image-heavy, but yes, the Australian section has no images, so one there would be good, at least as long as it is free and legal. By the way, if you can source that the Australian Jockey Club does list a bunch of Arabians as foundation Animals down there, note a "citation needed" tag is on that section. (just put the cite in parentheses if you have one, I'll make the formatting work) Montanabw 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will put the image in later. The ASB did record some of the early Arabs as they were then known, but I don't know the number or have access to the early books. Hector was 15-16 hands high and had belonged to Arthur Wellesley, better known as the Duke of Wellington. His exact importation date is uncertain. Hector was an important early sire and his bloodlines survive in TB pedigrees.(sources: "The Arabian Horse in Australia", and "The Australian Bloodhorse") Cgoodwin (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry the image was from a watercolour impression by the author and would therefore be unuseable, even though the author, is deceased. I had assumed it was an old painting! However I have just found "There were many Arab horses brought to Australia during the 1790s and 1800s. About a hundred such sires are listed in the Australian Stud Book........... (source "The Australian Bloodhorse", by Douglas M Barrie; Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1956; p. 96) Cgoodwin (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Will add that bit. As for the image of Hector, or any other early Arab, the image itself may be public domain if it's in a work that has an expired copyright. I also can make an image work under a fair use rationale if it's all there is; see what I did with Skowronek as an example. Montanabw 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image to Commons: Hector.jpg. I hope that this OK as I found a copy of it, too, in a Land newspaper dated 1995 without attribution. If you need more info on him I do have a little more. Cgoodwin (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See what I added. Tweak as needed. Montanabw 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me! Cgoodwin (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions

What are the external links doing in the infobox? Is this typical of horse-related articles?Corvus coronoides _talk 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template was created at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Horse breeds. I am no expert on infoboxes, but that was the template agreed upon well before I became a wikipedian, it's been around for more than 2 years, anyway. Horse breed standards are often more extensive than the AKC ones for dogs, so it's hard to precisely migrate the template. Montanabw 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I ask because I'm currently reviewing the article for GA Sweeps. I understand that it is hard to change the template, but usually in info boxes external links aren't used to fill in the fields. If this happens in every horse article, then I'll understand, but it seems strange to me. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, that infobox format is used everywhere that it appears in any of the horse breed articles (see American Paint Horse, that was the prototype, I think) and I wasn't in on its creation, I've just been using it since. However, I also seem to be the only person who is doing anything actively with wikiproject horse breeds, at the moment, so if you can help me figure out a better way to do this, I'm all ears...I think the goal was to source a set of official standards, and the template came off of whatever they did for the dog breeds. If you could be so kind as to take a glance over at the project page and see if there is a way to point myself or anyone else who cares in the right direction, I'm willing to add it to the to do list. Montanabw 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and explain "GA Sweeps?" Montanabw 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See here for some details on the Sweeps. I would suggest changing that link in the infobox into something other than "Stds" but it's your choice. As I'm not part of the horse wikiproject, I think it's really up to you. I'll get back to you with a more detailed review after I get back from vacation. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think that the merge should happen because the other one is a shorter version of this, with some bits in it that could be put here. Any thoughts? Dreamafter 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply blanked and redirected the article, there is no such thing as a "Syrian Arabian," there are Purebred Arabians in Syria. There was just a spat between the World Arabian Horse Organization and the Syrian Government over the recognition of their studbook, an issue that has now been resolved, if you will note at the bottom of the "controversies" section of this article. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. It's fixed now. Montanabw 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Some sections lack inline cites completely. Ideally, I'd like to see at least one cite per paragraph in a GA article.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Overall, an excellent article - it just needs some more cites. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? THIS ARTICLE HAS OVER 100 CITATIONS! HOW MANY DO YOU WANT!!! Montanabw 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information:

1. The third paragraph in the article has no citations; Cited
2. The entire "Colors" section has no citations; cited
3. The first and third paragraph in the "Colors that do not exist in purebreds" section does not have citations; That is because the above section on colors explained that they only come in certain colors, so logically, they do not have any others, thus other material simply points out a couple of obvious conclusions from known data cited previously. Seems illogical to cite again...
4. The "Rabicano or roan?" section has no citations; cited
5. The "Influence on other horse breeds" section has no citations; Hmm, I suppose about 200 other horse breed articles on Misplaced Pages with sources that say their breed had Arabian ancestors doesn't cut it, eh? Can't put all 200 cites here, will try and find something that summarizes it. Sigh...
6. The last paragraph of the "Desert roots" section has no citations; cited
7. The first paragraph of the "Strains and pedigrees" section has no citations; cited
8. The first and second paragraphs in the "From the Middle East to Europe" section has no citations; I think the whole section is from the Harrigan source cited at the end of the third paragraph, do you really want to just source the same material three times in a row? I mean, if you really are going to jerk GA status for not having one cite per paragraph, fine, but this one is overkill
9. The last paragraph in the "Modern warfare and its impact on European studs" section has no citations; will review later
10. The "Arabians today" section has no citations; Cited
11. The first paragraph in the "Uses" section has no citations; cited, but it's an introduction, for pete's sake!
12. The first two paragraphs in the "Competition" section have no citations; seems irrelevant, something to challenge in there?
13. The last paragraph in the "Other activities" section has no citations; ditto
14. The first paragraph in the "Controversies" section has no citations; um, that's because it's an introductory paragraph and all contentions summarized there are explained in detail in subsequent subsections...
15. The "Physical size" Section has no citations; sort of states the obvious, could reference materials from other sections, seems redundant to do so.
16. The "Hip angle" section has no citations; will check materials for sourcing
17. The " "Arabians are magic" beliefs" section has no citations; You haven't read the earlier archives here, have you? (grin) Can romanticizing idiots saying really stupid things be a source? Yes, I know. This one is a "widely understood within the industry" thing, will see what's out there
18. The fifth part of the " "Purity" question" has no citations; Suggestions on how to prove a negative? Can't surf 50 preservation sites to say, "nope, none make this claim..."? Seriously, got any ideas?

I hope that that helps you find the references for those. Dreamafter 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dreamafter. That is exactly what I meant. Montanabw, I also replied to your message on my talk page. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing GA status with FA status. And seriously, even by FA standards if you really think that EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH (yes, I am shouting) needs a citation for GA status or to conform to any other standard, then please provide a specific link to the wikipedia guidelines that specifically say that every single paragraph requires a footnote because I think you are over the top. I mean "first paragraph of section X has no citations", that would be because it is an INTRODUCTION, and as a general rule, introductory paragraphs are by their nature summaries that introduce what will be discussed (and sourced) as the section proceeds. I mean, for pete's sake. I have no problems with a couple of the spots you noted, but I really think you are over the top to threaten to delist the article from GA, particularly when all that is needed to challenge material that you might legitimately think is questionable are a couple of polite {{fact}} tags. Montanabw 02:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

According to criterion 2b, at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. Since I am reviewing this article for the Project Quality Sweeps, I think that a quality article needs a cite in every paragraph. Again, please be civil. I think that GA's need to be verifiable, and at this point, this article is close to there, and finding cites for the remaining locations will be fine. You suggest the use of {{fact}} tags - if I tagged things with those tags, the article would have one every other sentence. For GA - all I require is at least one cite per paragraph. Corvus coronoides _talk 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo: To that end, I read WP:WIAGA too: Yup, "(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; I see NOTHING about citing every paragraph. I do NOT think that a "quality article" needs a cite in every paragraph, particularly for widely known and accepted general knowledge. I still want to see your evidence for that being more than your personal opinion. Like I said, if you really find something controversial, counter-intuitive or whatever and have a LEGITIMATE reason to challenge it, then feel free to place appropriate {{fact}} tags. The 18 examples above have maybe five or six legitimate concerns that could appropriately be tagged. But I really think a threat to delist from GA status is overkill, particularly when the version that first obtained GA status (and withstood a challenge at the time, by the way) was less sourced than it is now. Montanabw 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a quality sweep. And the above criteria applies because to be verifiable, I believe an article should have a cite for at least every main idea - ie, every paragraph. Since you insist, I will tag all statements that I feel need cites. Corvus coronoides _talk 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Natural sciences good articles
• Old requests for peer review