Talk:Rocky Mountain Horse

GA Review

GA review discussion here

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rocky Mountain Horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I've been riding a couple of times, but I can't say I know much about horses. Hope I can learn something! Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC) "classic "chocolate" coat" It's not clear what's meant by "classic" in this case Reworded - did I make it better or worse? :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "tail, seen in much of the population" How about "tail, both of which are seen in much of the population"? I've rearranged this sentence a bit - does it work better now? Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "The breed exhibits a natural four-beat ambling gait, called a single-foot, which replaces the trot of most horse breeds." Is this gait found in other breeds, or is it unique? Is it worth going into a little more detail about precisely how it differs from a trot? Added some more detail. Does this answer your questions, or is more necessary? Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I tweaked it further, as the gaited horse breeders are real fussy about lingo, I'll try to strike a balance between common English and breeder terminology. Montanabw(talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "The gait allows members of the breed, with rider, to cover rough ground at around 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) and short lengths of smooth ground at up to 16 miles per hour (26 km/h)." Again, how does this compare to a trot? For instance, is this a particularly fast breed on rough ground but slow on smooth? Gaited breeds are actually fairly fast, when they want to be. I've added a comparison to a typical medium trot speed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "Scientists believe that" A little colloquial. How about "Studies of [type] have suggested that the condition is..." or "According to research by [people], the condition is..." or something akin? Tweaked. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Images are fine. One had the wrong license, but I fixed that. While the lead image is a great one, I'm not clear what the foal image adds. Perhaps File:Rock-mountain-horse-head.jpg to display the mane would be better? Replaced. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Be consistent as to whether you give locations for publishers? Done, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Can I ask why you have chosen not to cite this article? It seems strange that you choose this one over it; it does not appear to be peer reviewed- I doubt any peer reviewed article would be published in Comic Sans... (I haven't read the whole thing, but I note that the earlier article mentions that the condition is most common in this particular breed, which is an interesting detail.) I didn't cite it because I hadn't found it. I've now replaced the ref and made some changes to the text. Don't know how much detail I should go into on this...trying to strike a balance between enough for the equine enthusiast but not too much for the general non-geneticist layperson. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I don't know if you're opposed to wikilinks in footnotes, but I'd wikilink a few of the publishers, personally- American Livestock Breeds Conservancy especially Got a couple (including ALBC)...were there any others that you were looking at? Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) How reliable is the International Museum of the Horse? It's a subsection of the Kentucky Horse Park and the largest equine museum in the world. As such, I think it's quite reliable. Is there something in particular that's giving you pause about it? It's been used in quite a few FAs without problem. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, generally quite solid; IMH occasionally falls prey to repeating breed registry puffery, but usually is quite reliable; if we contradict IMH, we need a very good reason to do so. Montanabw(talk) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Is the horse breeds cat not redundant to the US cat? Yeah, it is. Removed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) NOOOOOO! WPEQ had a big dispute over this a while back; We keep the massive cat, because otherwise we can't keep the list article current. It's origin by nations cats that cause the problems (breeds originating in certain European nations with shifting borders can get listed in five different nationalities!) Long story. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Why the navbox when this article does not appear on it? (Perhaps a navbox of American horse breeds would be better.) This navbox is on all of the equine articles, and there have been some spats with one person putting it on all of them and another person following along behind and taking them all off again. I've mostly stayed out of it, and just ignore it when it's on an article I'm working on. However, if it really bothers you, I can remove it. Navboxes for horse breeds by country can also be a dicey subject, since sometimes multiple countries "claim" a breed and don't like to admit that anyone else had a hand in creating it. Last I checked, there wasn't one specifically on American horse breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Same problem as the categories; the fight is thanks to our friends on the other side of the Atlantic pond and hundreds of years of political boundary-shifting; we have some European breeds that would have (literally) five different nationality navboxes. We've had edit spats where there are strong nationalistic feelings. Thus, the Equine one is used universally because it links to List of horse breeds which is what actually matters - finding other horse breeds. The IMH site, for example, sticks just with continents. (I think the all or nothing spat ended 2-3 years ago now, with the same (now blocked) user both taking it off and putting it on). Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) There seems to be a lot of stuff here. Is any of it worth adding? There also seem to be a few sources popping up on Google Book Search referring to the good temperament (this, for instance) which you don't mention. Added a few bits and pieces from that ref, including a small bit on temperament. Most breeds have aficionados claim that they have good temperaments and are sweet enough for a toddler to handle...a lot of it's just propaganda. They conveniently forget to mention that the mares become nasty, tail-wringing dervishes when they're in heat *cough*Arabians*cough* :) Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) (*cough* What about Appaloosas, who would kill us all in our sleep if they had opposible thumbs and could open doors? (*cough*) (grin) MY Arabian mares never give me the least amount of crap when they're in heat! They know better! They only pull that crap on people who will let 'em get away with it! LOL! (noogies!) Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) A lot of stuff on Google Scholar as well as Google Books. Not a lot jumped out at me, but I didn't look long. I just wonder about the fact that this is a shorter article with comparably few sources, but there does seem to be a good amount out there. It looks like a lot of the stuff on Google scholar is really in-depth genetic studies on the color and eye stuff...too deep for the general reader and a lot of them being the references that the two BMC Genetics articles we cite are based on. All of the Google Books stuff I can find is just duplication of what's already in the article - the basic breed books all have pretty much the same story on these more rare breeds. There is one book specifically about the RMH, but it appears to be self-published and markets itself partially on its "250 color photos" (i.e. coffee table book) and "humorous anecdotes" (i.e. non-encyclopedic, though cute, stories). Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Sorry if this sounds a little critical- this is a decent article, certainly. Hope my comments are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! No problem with being critical - I always appreciate outside comments on "my" articles, since I often can't see the issues with my own writing. The beginning of my replies are above - the rest I should have done by tomorrow evening. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) OK, I think I have taken care of everything above. Please let me know if there are additional areas you want me to delve into. As I said above, as a horse person it's often hard for me to see gaps that make a layperson go "huh?" and as a general person it's often hard for me to see flaws in my own writing. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I'm much preferring the more extended discussion of the eye issues and the gait, but note that the gait discussion does feel a little technical in places. I'm much happier that it's there, but it's something to perhaps be aware of. "which at the time only numbered around 26 horses." Surely, this is not true? Do you mean to say that when founded, there were only that many registered? The source says "From only 26 Rocky Mountain Horses...in 1986", but then later says that there were 26 horses registered at the first meeting of the association. So, I'm really not sure if this is all they could find or if more were found and registered later. I'm assuming the latter, since it makes more sense, numbers-wise, and so have changed the text to reflect this. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC) "estimated global population of the breed is less than 10,000" Again, this seems inconsistent with the numbers signed up to the association? The number signed up to the association is over the life of the registry - it includes all horses registered since 1986, many of which have since died. The ALBC numbers only include living horses. I have tried to play with the wording to make this more clear, but may have just muffed it up further :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Date formatting inconsistency in the references. Techinically the MOS allows for using one date format for publication dates and another for access dates. However, it's just one date and I don't feel like fussing, so I made it standard across the board. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC) It's certainly coming together. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the additional comments. I'm really not sure how to change the gait stuff to make it less technical, since the difference between the gaits come down to a basic difference between lateral vs. diagonal leg pairings and how many beats there are between when a leg hits the ground and when that same leg hits the ground again. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC) I tweaked that some more, trying to make it simpler, though perhaps taking more words to do so. Hope it helped. Gaitedness in horses has to be handled delicately, those who care about the details care a lot, so to miss nuance in the name of simplicity can be a minefield :-P . (Note, there are diagonal ambling gaits too, notably the fox trot, so god forbid the person who tries to make it too easy! =:-O ) Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I'm thinking that, backing-and-forthing between the three of us, this article's now looking in decent shape, and is ready for promotion. Good work, both of you! J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to Rocky Mountain Horse

Hello. I was notified that you undid my edit to the Rocky Mountain Horse article, and I was a little puzzled as to your reasoning. You claimed that the "edits exceed scope", which is not a Wiki term I am familiar with. Allow me to explain my edit: Firstly, the previous version of the article did not explicitly state the effects of the silver dapple gene on the breed's color, rather stating that "chocolate" was the result of the gene, completely ignoring the effects on the mane and tail. Ergo, I reworded the statement to clarify. Secondly, the "link to candy bar article" which you claim is not needed was actually a link to this article describing the color "chocolate". I felt that, since there was an actual Wiki article about the color, it would be more beneficial to link to it instead of having the word "chocolate" in quotes littered about. Ironically, the word "flaxen" was linked to the article for flax in the previous version, which I had edited to link to flax (color) which is more accurate (but which you also reverted). In the future, you would do well to actually examine edits and pay attention to links before you willy-nilly undo someone's work. Zargabaath 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The original phrasing did, in fact, reference silver dapple: "Chocolate is the result of the relatively rare silver dapple gene." I do see the need to rephrase that a bit and just did so; however, I stand by my reverting of your edit, as your wording was not particularly copperplate, either: We don't link to ordinary color articles like black, brown, etc. Point acknowledged on flaxen, an odd color word, so a link is appropriate there, and I agree with you on that, also rephrased the overuse of "rare" and "chocolate." "Scope" was shorthand for "scope of cited source," where it appeared that you went a bit beyond what the citation allowed us to say. Where we link coat colors, it is usually to articles about the color in horses, where the genetics and variations are also described. Putting "chocolate" in quotes is deliberate, to signal the reader that we are using particularly unusual jargon that is not standard in the horse world. Also, silver dapple is neither more or less a "mutation" than is black itself, so phrasing was a bit awkward. So, in the future, YOU would do well to not trot over here and snark at me, but rather to take the issue to the talk page of the article in question and per WP:BRD discuss. Some of your points are well-taken, but getting into a snit because you were reverted is not going to get you anywhere, getting reverted is life on wikipedia, and it is not "willy-nilly". Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's fair for you to reduce my very justifiable query to a "snit" or to accuse me of "snarking at you". Please assume good faith. You did not provide a concise explanation for your reversion, so obviously I'm going to address you directly and not on the article's talk page. Now that you've provided some semblance of a rationale: The silver dapple gene IS a genetic mutation and it IS rare, so referring to it as such is not a stretch. In fact, the cited source (of which you claim I exceeded the "scope") refers to the gene as a "missense mutation" right in the title and details its rarity. (I did not even use the word "rare" in my edit, I simply recycled the instance where it already appeared in the article, so "overuse" is a bit of an exaggeration). Also, "chocolate" is actually a commonly used term in the "horse world", particularly pertaining to the Rocky Mountain Horse, so it's interesting that you would claim it to be "unusual jargon". Assuming for the moment that it is "unusual" though, would that not be even better reasoning for why it needs the link for clarification? If it's acceptable for flaxen, does doing it for "chocolate" hurt the article? Remember that the information is not meant only for those familiar with the equine world, it needs to be comprehensible and informative for the general public. Zargabaath 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, you may not have noticed that I DID agree above with SOME of the reasoning behind SOME of your changes and did another edit or two to the article to address them, though I reworded what you said a bit. Second, this is a Good article by wikipedia standards, this means that everything in it has been - and must continue to be - sourced and to a reliable source. Though the article talks about rarity of the gene in general, this isn't the article about the gene, so it doesn't have to be in the lead, as the color is relatively common in the Rocky Mountain horse, not rare for that breed. There is also no need to add a bunch of unnecessary adjectives, this is an encyclopedia, not PR for the breed registry. and- the breed people love to talk about the rare color, they aren't so anxious to admit that it is also linked to vision problems... GA status also means that we hold to certain conventions about wikilinking, particularly as regards to links to common words (like colors) that everyone knows about red, yellow, blue, green, "chocolate" - when we link horse coat colors, we link to the coat color articles, which have discussions of genetics and other items; we don't link to articles about the color, illustrated by a picture of a chocolate bar. I later unlinked flaxen for the same reason. "Chocolate" is a word that some horse people do use to describe the color, particularly those trying to sell horses of that color, but it isn't common in the sense that bay, gray, and chestnut are common; it's popular with the "I just looove pink ponies and magic unicorns" little girl crowd, but for mainstream horse people, who know you don't ride the color, now that we know what makes the coat color occur, using the genetic description of silver dapple is more professional; hence, the signal that "chocolate" is jargon. (Also avoids the "eats shoots and leaves" problem of inadvertently implying that you can eat the chocolate horse...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)