Talk:Horse Protection Act of 1970

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHorse Protection Act of 1970 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 7, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 20, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Horse Protection Act of 1970 was designed to eliminate soring, but inspectors still find hundreds of violations each year?
Current status: Featured article

More sources[edit]

Summary Page on H.R.6388

Full text of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6388/text

Hope this helps. When possible, in legal land, it's good to quote the exact language (anywhere else it's plagiarism, but not in law if you put it in quotes and provide a proper cite. Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add the full text link in as an external link, I think. I used the "All Congressional Actions" section of the first link as a reference already - that's a really cool site. Wish it went back to the 70s! Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. And I looked... might go back that far on LEXIS, but I don't have that at the office. Montanabw(talk) 14:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is getting to a good place for a run at GA, unless there's something major we're missing. Might even be able to send it to FAC afterwards... Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd run this past the people who do law articles on wikipedia as either formal or informal peer review first. I don't do much on law articles on-wiki and I think there could be some formatting stuff we aren't aware of. I'm also wondering if we should do anything on the number of prosecutions/convictions under the act or not. But yes, I think it could get there pretty quick. Congrats on the Saddlebred article, by the way! Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC) And, I'm going to let a couple people know we could use a bit of informal peer review. Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note to User:Ironholds, who is one of the main editors working on legal articles on WP, although he does mainly British stuff. I think we're in pretty good shape for GAN, but it will be nice to have the extra eyes if we go to FAC. Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 is another law article that could probably go to GAN fairly easily - you've done awesome work there! Dana boomer (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fun too. Montanabw(talk) 19:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments[edit]

Montanabw asked me to take a look at the article. Generally pretty good, it might be worth taking a shot at GA. Some specific things:

Lede
  • I suggest moving all or most of the legal citations to a footnote. Additionally, I think the first paragraph should be made as short as possible. Consider a break after "it has been sored." "In the practice of spring", what's wrong with "Soring is".
  • "some inspectors" how about some citizen-inspectors"
  • You should clarify that the amendments bill was reintroduced in January 2013.
Background
  • " trainers" clarify what sort of horse they were training (i.e. for what)
  • " outlawing through" perhaps "prohibition in"
  • Consider blockquoting the definition of soring here.
  • I think I've addressed everything from the Background section. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contents
  • I don't think Act should be capitalized except if used as part of a formal title. I note that you are inconsistent in this regard in any case.
Fixed, I believe. RF 22:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the invocations of 15 USC are a bit much. Can you not start with mentioning that the HPA is in Title 15 of the US Code, and transition to only having to mention section numbers?
  • I think I've addressed everything from the Contents section. Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation
  • "In the original version of the Act, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) branch of the USDA was charged with enforcing the Horse Protection Act." Perhaps "As originally enacted, the Act was to be enforced by [APHIS], part of the USDA.
  • "but will be in effect when the rider" Perhaps "but which will be administered before the rider"
  • Montanabw: Can you check this one please? I've checked the source, and cannot figure out what this sentence is referring to...I know you wrote it, so maybe I'm missing something? Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ANSWER: Basically, there are several different tricks, (I'd have to do a bunch more sleuthing for all the details) but the idea is that the horse tests as OK at the inspection but is sored and in pain by the time the horse's class is called, thus getting the "big lick" action. I cannot say for certain that things are done after inspection and before entering the class because, just for example, if drug testing protocols are weak, the animal could have an analgesic administered that causes the horse to not appear to be in pain, but which wears off before class time, for example, so... see next comment below--MontanaBW
  • "which are timed to wear off" strike "which are"
  • " courts with appeals rising to the Circuit Court level" how about "courts which have had their rulings appealed to the Circuit Court level"
  • "This led to the June 2012 strengthening of penalty systems." This sounds significant, and it's a bit unclear.
Amendment.
  • Since the original bill would have died with the Congress in January, the bill was presumably reintroduced, I'd check one of the Congress's website to cite if anyone wants any of the gory details.
  • I've updated the information both in this section and in the lead. The bill has not yet been introduced, although the reintroduction is expected soon...although with US politicians acting like spoiled toddlers...oops, did I say that out loud? :) Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look! I've begun to make some of the changes above, and I'll leave comments here as I work. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More work done. Montana, can you check the point above where I bolded your name, please? Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answered. The source is also vague, but I'm betting delayed action drugs or possibly stuff that doesn't hurt upon application until you irritate it by putting on chains, that sort of thing. Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the part of the source that says that? I can't find the part about delayed effect soring agents in the Equus report... Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's there, more that it's implied, I may have to do a little more research to verify. Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montana, have you had a chance to look at this again? I think the sourcing for this bit is the last thing we need before a GA nom! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, been in other messes. We may just need to chop that bit and run it to GA without, I can dig it up later. Montanabw(talk) 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool, thanks for commenting it out. I've made a couple more tweaks and nominated for GAN, so we'll see what happens! Dana boomer (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy. Here goes! Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping ping![edit]

BIG indictment!

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Horse Protection Act of 1970/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article came up for review at WP:GAN. It looked to be a rather intriguing article, so I'm going to review it. Let me start by thanking all of the contributors for their hard work, and for making this article quite high quality. Now, let's break this down section by section:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I have one note on the lead in regard to the prose, and that is the specific note of the USDA using GC/MS, simply because it's not a main point of the article. There are a few other areas that read a little clunky as well: the Contents of the Act section has all but one sentence starting with "The", and in the impact section, three paragraphs in a row start with "In (such and such a time)..." These might need to be reworded to improve both sentence and paragraph fluency and make the article easier to read.
    I have reworked that sentence in the lead (and added another) to better summarize the pertinent section of the article, without the excessive focus on GC/MS. Are we reading the same Contents section? I'm seeing 5 of 10 sentences that start with "the"...and I'm not sure how to reword it without putting more of the statue numbers first, which would get really repetitive in the other direction. In the Impact section there were not three successive sentences starting with "In date..." (there were intervening sentences between each pair), but I have reworded one anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There weren't three successive sentences starting with "In ..." in the Impact, there were three paragraphs starting that way. Seeing as how eyes jump from paragraph to paragraph when one reads articles, it's again a matter of fluency and variance to be easier to read (I call this paragraph fluency), although much less important than sentence fluency. I might see if I can be bold and give it a slight copyedit tonight to help with that. Same thing with the Contents section, and I do recognize that's a tough one because legal statutes often don't read quite so smoothly. Oftentimes I find that the easiest way to increase sentence fluency is to both vary the way sentences start off, and also to combine like ideas using conjunctions to create varied sentence lengths, which are easier on the reader. That being said, the more I look at the Contents section, the more I can see that conjoining sentences to vary length will be very difficult. Perhaps it will be something that will get noticed more should this article reach WP:FAC, but as it is, I'm okay with leaving the Contents section as it is. The rewordings you've done are very nice and the article reads smoother, so I believe we meet 1a at this point. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I was a bit snarky last night - my only excuse it that I was tired :( I've done a bit more work to these two areas, which hopefully make them read more smoothly. Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Checklinks reveals no dead links, a good start. A couple of sections may need some touchup in regards to reference, however: early on in the Background section there is a citation for the 1960's detail, but not one for all of the information for the '50s. That may not be the case and the one in-line citation may be for both, but think of the reader and make it known if that's the case, so it cannot be questioned as original research. I'm also wondering why 15 U.S.C. § 1821 is formatted as an external link whereas later on in the same paragraph, § 1824 is formatted as an in-line citation. Lastly, how is the "general" reference at the bottom of the list used in the article? If it is just for general reading about the topic and not used in any in-line citations, would it be better placed within External links or in its own Further reading section?
    The first ref in the Background section covers all of the preceding information in that section. As this is just general background info and not controversial, I don't see the point of duplicating the reference and adding a sea of little blue links. I've removed the external link to §1821, as it is already linked in the lead. Initially we had all of the statues linked to an external link of the full text, but another reviewer said it made for too many external links in the paragraph. The general reference (the Case article) gives the full information for the short refs used inline as numbers 13 and 14. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In regard to the Case article, I can see that now. It still seems somewhat strange to me to be formatted that way because it's only used twice, but I wouldn't say it's in violation of the criteria or the manual of style. Removal of the external link is quite helpful with consistency, and is good. As for the duplicating reference, I would call that a polite difference in opinion, but again, not a dealbreaker because it's not in violation of the criteria. I do agree about a sea of blue links being excessive and I dislike that myself, but have always thought and practiced that anything that could be possibly be conceived as original research should be cited, controversial or not. That, however, is merely just opinion, I suppose, and with that cleared up I would agree that we meet the criteria at this point. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Appears to me that the article covers all major aspects of the subject, and is focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Well balanced, no POV issues I can see. Notes on both shoddy enforcement and legal objections read without taking sides and are well referenced.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    A check of the edit history indicates stability of the article. No edit warring, no conflict.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images are free. I think it could use one more, maybe in the background or implementation section, but that's a personal opinion and the article does meet criterion 6.
    I've added an image of a Tennessee Walking Horse to the Background section, so that people can see the type of riding horse we're talking about. Unfortunately, we don't have any really good images of it or the Racking horse, which are the most affected by this Act. Hopefully at some point we'll get some :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is very nice. I believe it does help the article. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm going to place this on hold for the time being. I think just some light work should put this article in great shape and ready to meet the GA criteria. The only concerns I have are criteria 1a, 2a, and 2c, but they're only minor concerns.

Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Red Phoenix. These look like minor issues, and I should be able to address them a bit later this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the review! I believe I have replied to all of your comments above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem; I'm always glad to review. I've left some more comments above, but I would say we meet GA status at this point. Well done! Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review and pass! Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC run?[edit]

After doing a bit more work after the GA pass (mainly integrating the external links and doing a bit of copyediting), I think we're in pretty good shape for a FAC run. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See if we can get a wikiproject Law/legal reviewer on it for a run-through. I think you are right. Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds (one of the best law editors on WP) looked through it before the GAN, and I addressed the minor issues that he came up with. The review is somewhere on/in the archives of my talk page, if you want to look, but it was only a couple of comments. I don't know who else we would ask, or did you have someone specific in mind? Dana boomer (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, this just seems too easy for a GA/FA... just twitchy, I guess! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to add?[edit]

Found this infobox, should we one like it to the article? I think it is a good thing to add. Will need to tweak the syntax, not sure I'm doing it right. What think you, Dana? As time permits, maybe we can sandbox it here to be right for this article and then add it when we have it finished Montanabw(talk) 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleBald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Acronyms (colloquial)BGEPA
NicknamesEagle Act
Enacted bythe 76th United States Congress
EffectiveJune 8, 1940
Citations
Public lawP.L 86-70,P.L. 87-884,P.L. 92-535,P.L. 95-616
Statutes at Large54 Stat. 250,73 Stat. 143,76 Stat. 1346,86 Stat. 1064,92 Stat. 3114
Codification
U.S.C. sections created16 U.S.C. § 668 et seq.

Links for updates[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Horse Protection Act of 1970. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horse Protection Act of 1970. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horse_Protection_Act_of_1970&oldid=1206890824"