Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thoroughbred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [1].

[edit] Thoroughbred

Self-nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine has worked hard on this article, it's been through a rigourous GAN with Van Tucky, had a PR, and we now feel it's ready for FAC.

Co-nom with Montanabw (talk · contribs), Dana boomer (talk · contribs), Cgoodwin (talk · contribs) and Getwood (talk · contribs). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, great work! Tentative Support - nice work! Only a few minor concerns at this time.
    • "... was first developed during the 17th and 18th centuries in England" Consider "in 17th and 18th century England" if you agree the meaning is the same.
Changed per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You are importing to England and then into North America; choose one and go with it.
Caught a couple. Might be more still lurking. Went with "into" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A bit of redundancy in the lead: the last two paras begin with "Thoroughbreds are used mainly for racing ..." and then "Although Thoroughbreds are seen in many sport disciplines, they are bred mainly for racing ..." I know you are explaining two different ideas, but maybe you can reword the latter.
Leaving this one for the wordsmiths among my co-noms (Dana? Montana?) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave it a go. Not etched in stone if anyone objects. Getwood (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There is a bit of jargon that could stand some basic context or wikilinking, such as "foundation sire" and "foundation stock".
Tried to explain Foundation Sire in a footnote. Put in "breeding" between "foundation" and "stock" which hopefully helps make the context clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am also in the process of creating foundation bloodstock as at least a stub that explains it. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good. The last thing I wanted to do was add another article to my pile of "created stub, need to expand" stack. Thanks, Montana Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "The race was over 3 mi (4,800 m), and although Iambic carried 4.5 stone (29 kg) more than Asil ..." I'm not sure what this means. Was the horse carrying a load? Is this referring to the weight of the horse? The jockey?
That's a handicap. In order to make races as fair as possible, handicaps of added weight are given to horses that are considered "better" runners. Thus, Iambic's jockey had an extra 29 kg stuck into his saddle (they have special pockets on racing saddles for the weights which are in bar form) to try to help even out the odds on the race. Linked to handicap race and worded it a bit less jargony. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting.. they still do that now? --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they still do it in races for older, more experienced horses. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "World War I almost destroyed the French breeders ..." I'd prefer "destroyed French breeding" so no one takes it literally. Unless you meant it literally.
Nope, didn't mean it literally. Reworded per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Although in some cases it could be taken literally also! (smile) But no, we agree. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Jargon alert: broodmares
Linked AND explained! (how's that for service!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Truly important question: Who's checking the references? :-) Here's are my findings from this otherwise excellent article.

Heh. I checked them before hand? Im pretty sure my fellow participants at Wikiproject Equine find my habit of whacking sources annoying, but they put up with me somehow. I'm sure someone will check the sources for me.. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Breed characteristics: Hot-blooded has a hyphen here, but not in the lead.
Hm, not sure which is correct. Someone else have the answer? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it, per my handy dictionary. (Do we do strikeout on the ones we fixed? Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the person who left the comments does the striking out here. We don't use graphic done tick marks either! (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • History, Beginnings in England: Ref 19 is not following punctuation.
This isn't a ref, it's an explanatory footnote, trying to explain what a foundation sire is. We don't have an article on that, and the explanation is rather long. If anyone has a better idea how to integrate the information into the prose, please let us know. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Refs out of order later in paragraph [22][16].
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In America: A few locations unlinked. I see Kentucky, Tennessee, Long Island, California, and Florida.
I'll link them, but I expect I'll get Tony1 telling me to unlink them later.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Epsom Derby was already linked in previous section.
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In Europe: World War I and World War II are linked here. If you want to have these linked, I recommend moving them up to the last paragraph of In America.
got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Derby Stakes already linked in previous section.
Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Last paragraph has four unlinked countries. The other countries mentioned are linked, so these probably should be as well.
Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In Other Areas: The title should be In other areas.
oops, I know that! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • South Africa isn't linked here. The location linking seems inconsistent in general.
Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Italy linked twice in the section.
Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One note from the References, of all places: The full reference of Robert M. Miller's "And They Call Us Horse Lovers" from Cowboy Magazine has a formatting error. It says "Retrived on on".
It says a date in Feb for me, did it get fixed in the meantime? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it about halfway through the article. After these are done, I will come back to review the rest of it. Giants2008 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - The second half is looking very good. The following is all I could find that was questionable. By the way, I took a look at the reference I noted above, and the formatting looking fine. I have no idea what's going on there.
  • Registration, breeding, and population: "One reason is that more possibility of error exists" Try "a greater possibility of error exists".
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Selective breeding: You might want to attribute the quote here.
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Excess stress: "and too intense a racing schedule may also contribute." I think the first part of this can be improved.
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Two straight sentences start with One of the.
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the Chicago Sports Review article was removed from the citations, is there any reason to leave it in the References column?
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Bit trickier than the other three. [2] gives an overview of them. It's referencing "As a ratio (of injuries with eventually fatal complications to total competitions), this is far in excess of all other legal human and animal sports, including boxing, motorsports and greyhound racing." and the article in question was up when we worked on the article for GA, but it's gone now from online. I believe National Sports Review is a sports magazine, but I'm not sure if the article itself was published or just on their web page. I can't find the article now on their site. (As an aside, I don't think I know I didn't add the information and I'm thinking it was added by a non-racing fan, so if we have to lose the information, I won't cry.) I can possibly replace the data with something else, but it's going to take a bit. The real issue for me is that the article is gone, not so much the reliablity of the site itself. (Although it's part of the whole "racing is horrible" section, so it's possible it was POV one way, and may not have been a reliable site either.) Montana, you have better luck searching out this sort of thing, anything? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I also cannot bring up the article, and the Wayback Machine says the page is blocked, so no help there. As to the source itself, it's an online sports review site with a broader range of articles than mainstream sources, from their site, "a sports community that not only provides its members with a chance to read the kind of stories they won’t find in their daily newspaper or on ESPN.com," so I'd classify it as lacking a real heavy editorial hand. For that reason, I think we need to just remove that sentence, IMHO. And, I have done so. Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Published magazine, see [3] Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This one is sponsored by the National Sporting Library, which is probably one of the three best research libraries for horses and racing in the United States. (Keenland Library, Huntingdon Library are the others I'm thinking of). Most of the authors on the site are well known in the (admittedly small) field of Thoroughbred history. They write for national magazines, etc. on the racing industry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • jockeyclub.com
Jockey Club is the registering authority for Thoroughbreds in the United States. Their breed registry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
All other sources look fine, and while there is a 404 on the link-check tool, I was able to access it; links appear to work Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, just to clarify for us ignorant of horses :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I never mind sourcing questions. (I'd better not!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "interchangeably, [2] though" — extra space
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "1 mi (1,600 m) to 1.75 mi (2,820 m)" — Use km like you did with "4 mi (6.4 km),"
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the way that the references are all "author / title / pages" and would prefer "author / year / pages", but to each his own. At least you're consistent in this.
My fault. It was how I was trained as a historian, and looking at recent articles/books, it still seems like the usual method. I know that the sciences use the other method, but I can't ever keep straight which book was published in which year, it's easier to use the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The prose looks pretty good, and I trust the other reviewers who have taken a look at this article. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments Support, all my points dealt with. The article meets FA standard. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE The article is very insistent that "Thoroughbred" is a proper name which should be capitalized. There are two issues here. Firstly I don't think this is nearly as common in Britain - I don't know about other English-speaking countries. Secondly, a quick look suggests it is not done by most American news sources. The first page of this search shows the NY Times, Newsday, Voice of America & the Louisville Courier-Journal, KY (who ought to know frankly) all using lower-case. Especially in phrases like "thoroughbred racing/breeding" etc, although clearly it is the breed that is referred to. I see this was brought up for the GA review, but I'm not convinced by the answer.
It's a proper noun. The official name of a breed. Otherwise, that section is Montanabw's baby. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, all of the articles on the page that you linked to are referring to the Thoroughbred breed (as opposed to purebred horses in general), and as such, as Ealdgyth said, it is a proper noun and the authors/editors really should know better... I hadn't realized what a common error this was until I saw this list of articles though! Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't a breed, or can't have a capital T, especially in the US, but when an "error" is made by sources such as these, I'm dubious it is indeed an error rather than a difference in usage. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that one was my baby. It's an issue of ignorance and maybe language drift, just like how people often say colt when they really mean foal, and how folks now are so often saying "reign in" instead of "rein in." (even in newspapers!) I guess I'd like to see a style guide say that it can be used lower case! (LOL!) If the word "error" would cost this FA status, we could tone it down again, but frankly unless it's a deal-breaker, I think that it is an important usage note to keep, particularly in absence of contrary guidelines. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's more than that. The capitalization of breed names is relatively recent, and I suspect that older breed names, established before that (and not themselves derived from a proper noun like Airedale terrier etc), are not generally capitalized in the UK, and it would apppear, in much non-specialized US usage. Just calling this an "error" won't wash. See for example Collie; English Foxhound, written from an entirely American perspective (despite the fact only 17 are apparently registered there) wrongly uses capitals, which are certainly not used in normal English prose. I'm not a horsey person and I'm not aware of ever having seen thoroughbred treated as a proper noun before I saw this article. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. On one hand, the breed is a proper noun, if dog breeders say "thoroughbred dog" with a little "t" they aren't discussing a specific named horse breed. I guess that's the difference. As for rules, so many horse breeds have geographical place names (Clydesdale, Belgian, Dales Pony, Connemara, Timor Pony, Arabian, Tennessee Walker, etc...) or named after people (Morgan, for example), I can't see capitalizing some but not others, even in the UK, that is illogical. But then I am a Yank, so what do I know? (LOL!). Not something to have heartburn over. Oh, and I tweaked the para a bit, maybe clarified that it is primarily horse breeders who consider other usage incorrect (and literally, open most horse books and you will find a rant on this topic. It's clear in the realm of "pet peeve" LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - maybe it just needs a bit on the divergence of horsey & much general usage, especially in compound phrases, and I suspect in the UK, maybe elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have made an attempt at this - I think something along these lines needs to be said, gicen the weight of the evidence. Some of your references, like the New Scientist & another scientific paper, could also be cited. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with your additions. Hopefully that solves it. Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Great. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE "Beginnings" begins: "All modern Thoroughbreds carry the genetics of three stallions imported into England from the Middle East in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: the Byerly Turk (1680s), the Darley Arabian (1704), and the Godolphin Arabian (1729).[1][2] All modern Thoroughbreds trace back to these imported stallions." - carry the genetics? Maybe an English thing; here you carry "genes". If you change to genes you would not have to repeat the point just after. The prose is not great through this complicated section: "Other mares were of various oriental breeding"
Corrected and clarified a bit, did a bit of copyediting also to remove some redundancies. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE (& linked) "By the end of the 18th century, the English classic races had been established" - "Classic" should be a capitalized proper noun here, though rephrasing may be needed. See British Classic Races.
Capitalized it. I believe I had it capitalized when I wrote it, but I suspect it got changed to lowercase by a non-racing fan copyeditor, and then missed by me. Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE "There are slightly under 1.3 million Thoroughbreds in the United States today,[66] and about 37,000 Thoroughbred foals are registered each year in North America" How does that work? Are the 1.3m all registered? Needs explanation.
Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
One point added, but it is no clearer. Unless birth rates have just fallen massively recently, or there are massive imports, it suggests an average life-span of over 35 years! Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those are the numbers direct from the US Jockey Club. If I had to guess, and go into OR territory, it's a combination of the fact that some deaths don't get reported and there are more imports than exports. For example, the AQHA (the registry for Quarter horses) automatically marks a horse dead at 25 years, and the owner must submit proof every year that the horse is alive. I'm not sure what the procedures of the Jockey Club are, honestly. I have to say I trust the numbers of foals registered number better than the total number figure, and if you'd like, we can cut out the "total number" figure, and just leave the number of foals registered. The only place I know that gives information on the numbers of horses per breed is a VERY expensive publication by the American Horse Council, and they get their numbers from the registries anyway. The JC only gives that 1.3 million figure in a "fluff" pamplet designed to bring folks into racing, while the foal crop number comes from their online fact book. It's up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe leave the foals in the text, & put the total into the notes, with a brief comment on the apparent discrepancy per above. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Took your excellent suggestion. Let me know if that works, or if I got something off in the writing. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, looks fine. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE (very nicely, though maybe the amounts in millions could be stated in round millions - not sure what MoS says) Nothing about the value of the horses at various stages of their life, which seems an odd omission. Nor is there anything about their longevity/useful life as racers. What happens to the ones who don't race well? Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We can get really complicated in this because it's all over the map. It's an extremely high-risk business. Some yearlings never sell again for more than they did at Keeneland, others are resold for much more than their original price (I think, for example, Seattle Slew was purchased as a yearling for something like $17,000 and obviously was syndicated for millions for his owners after winning the triple crown.) The lucky ones that don't race well may be retired to new careers as saddle horses in various other disciplines (we do say that, somewhere--ideas for how we can do it better?) but the ugly (and edit-war-provoking) reality is that a lot also get canned. In fact, even a former Kentucky Derby winner, Ferdinand, was canned (happened in Japan, not the USA), see here, when he turned out to not be successful as a breeding stallion. Don't know how to handle that without massive POV problems, the horse slaughter article is an edit warring battleground nightmare and we really don't want to be dragged into it. Horses may race for a year, or they may race for several years, it depends on how well they do and if they stay sound. Geldings, having no value as breeding animals, are usually raced the longest. Mares usually hit the track just enough to prove themselves and head for the broodmare band ASAP. Stallions are in-between; the more they run and win, the more they are worth, but run one race too many and have them break down, the horse is then destroyed and not worth zip. Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Values of racehorses vary by country and their racing career. It's not really possible to give figures that might be current or would stay current. Mares usually retire to become mothers. Geldings (castrated males) often become hunters or show horses or just riding horses. The slaughter houses in the US are closed down, so they don't go there any more. Some go to retirement/adoption places. Stallions (and there are more stallions in the TB breed than usually seen in other breeds) often go on to breeding careers, which is one reason why the Jockey Club is insistant on no artificial means of breeding like artificial insemination or shipping semen, it helps give a career for lesser stallions. I used to work for a summer camp that had a few reconditioned/retrained ex-racehorses as lesson horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is any help here, without making it too complicated, the new farm bill is going to tweak tax depreciation on racehorses from seven years to three, reflecting more of an average traxk career. Track retirees often have long careers as riding horses, if they are reasonably sound. Ealdgyth is correct that the range of values is astonishing. Derby winners syndicate for millions, broken down retirees go "free to a good home." It all depends. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe add some record/average yearling prices, explaining these are far from typical. They are I suppose the most valuable animals in the world & I think this aspect needs mention. A bit more on the other wider lives led by the horses too - outside racing. Are there figures for the numbers in race training or who race annually? Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've gone and put up some representative numbers. The British Horseracing Authority doesn't track their statistics exactly the same as the US Jockey Club, so it's not quite equivilent. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE The use & linking of Jockey Club is not consistent with the articles The Jockey Club (US) and the Jockey Club (UK), leading to the same ambiguity, thoiugh in fact I think it is, a tad typically, always the US one that is meant. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll go through and double check all usages. There should be a few French usages also... I think every Thoroughbred registry is called Jockey Club something or another. Should get to this this afternoon! Thanks Johnbod. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Went through and made sure it was always "The Jockey Club" when I'm referring to the American registry. The reason there isn't much about the UK JC, is that it's not in charge of the registering of Thoroughbreds in the UK, that's done by Weatherby's. It's only in the US that the whole shebang of racing authority and registering is done by one organization. Let me know if I missed any, I think I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Comments

When I was growing up, Ocala, Florida was a beautiful span of horse farms. Now it's another cultural hellhole of strip malls. I thought the article was interesting, but I did have some difficulty understanding the writing in it.

  • What do you think about this sentence in the lead, since I didn't know what hot-blooded means: Thoroughbreds are considered "hot-blooded" horses, which are known for their agility, speed and spirit. Perhaps do similar for the warmblooded term.
    • Cut some verbiage to see if it reads cleaner. Comment "hot-blood" and all the others are defined in the horse article, and wikilinked. Will we be bloating the article if we define terms in text when they wikilink to a definition? Montanabw(talk) 09:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in Terminology kind of halts. I find it would flow better to define the Thoroughbred, then state that the term is used too widely to be technically correct.
    • DONE (?) Tweaked paragraph a bit per this comment and others. See if it is better. Basically, the para does state that "horse breeders" consider certain forms correct or incorrect, and if you check the footnote, there is a fuller explanation. Montanabw(talk) 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it a horse thing to have "brown" in quotations?
    • DONE Not necessarily, and I tossed the quotes if they are giving people heartburn, but genetically "bay" and "brown" are the same color, and bay is more correct terminology, but "brown" is used, even by the breed registry, sometimes, to describe a particular dark brown shade that other people call "black bay" or "mahogany bay." It's marginally sloppy usage, at least genetically. (Like calling the fetlock an "ankle", when it isn't) Worse yet, the Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown isn't even "brown," he's a blood bay. Just to confuse matters further. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If "hot-blooded" is a common classification, should it be in quotations in Breed characteristics?
  • Variate sentence starts in the first paragraph of Beginnings in England. Since you mention the grey coat color going back to two other sires, are there characteristics to be traced specifically back to the original three?
    • DONE. Tweaked phrasing to put gray in better (i.e. less significant) context. Good question. The other three weren't gray, so I guess the point is that there were some additional foundation stallions, though of lesser importance. That section was longer, we cut some of it. Is your suggestion that we expand or cut? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the same way I don't understand third cousins twice removed, I don't understand the first sentence in the second paragraph.
    • Basically, each of the three foundation sires wound up with only one male descendant that still appears in modern pedigrees. We can look at that one and see if we can word it better. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The sentence after that, to avoid repetition, how about The only male line that has been maintained to the present was Matchem, the grandson of the Godolphin Arabian. Also, I don't understand the significance of male-only lines.
    • Well, Matchem, Herod, and Eclipse, actually. The significance of male-only lines was sort of traditional, stallions have way more offspring than mares, but we know now, there are also certain traits carried only on the Y chromosome, just as the "tail female" dam line is also significant, and in part because we now realize the significance of mtDNA. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In this sentence: The addition of Arabian bloodlines ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791 and the practice of official registration of horses please clarify in addition to what, since it seems Thoroughbreds came from Arabians.
    • Note last paragraph of section, which explains the mares. They were from many breeds. We are open to suggestions for how we can say this better (?)
      • Took a stab at it with "The addition of Arabian bloodlines to the native English mares ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791..." which hopefully clarifies things a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • in actual number of lines of descent in modern Thoroughbreds, most horses have more crosses Is this males or females?
    • Both. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • added in "... in actual number of all lines of descent, not just paternal, in modern Thoroughbred pedigrees..." which hopefully makes more sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this sentence: As a percentage of contributions to current Thoroughbred bloodlines, another horse, Curwen's Bay Barb, contributed more than the Byerly Turk Numbers of percentages would be helpful to illustrate this point.
    • (Who had this particular source? Ealdgyth? Can we tweak? I think this is yours) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My source, which didn't give percentages. I have another one I can check, but it'll be later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Put in percentages to give more context. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If the article so far refers to male lines, can it also refer to female or mare lines instead of mare "families"?
    • See last paragraph of section. Not sure where the confusion is. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thoroughbred breeders always refer to "male lines" and "female families". It traces back at least as far as Lowe's families. Do you want us to clarify it more? Suggestions are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The abrupt mention of racing in Later development of Britain makes it sound as if racing in Britain began with the 18th century. Can you mention why Thoroughbreds were bred in the first section? Why import horses from far away and concentrate all the effort?
    • We could tweak that a bit to make for a clearer transition. (Ealdgyth or Dana? Can you draft (as you have the sources) an intro explaining the point, I can wordsmith if needed?) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I have the sources at home... let me see what I have here on the road. I'll throw something up. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • There is now a brief paragraph explaining the development of racing. Probably needs prose tweaking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems as if this sentence hangs at the end as an afterthought: Up until the end of the 19th century, Thoroughbreds were bred not only for racing but also as saddle horses
    • DONE. Moved sentence to a later paragraph on the 19th century, seems to fit better there. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would steeplechasing be more accurate to describe with "using fences and other obstacles in races", rather than "racing over fences," which sounds as if the entire race is over many fences. I can't even visualize what that might be.
    • DONE. Cut the definition and just left the wikilink, but do we now have a jargon problem? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The flow in In America is confusing. Sir Archy is significant, horse racing centers were moved, Sir Archy's impact. Can you state briefly in the first paragraph that X of Sir Archy's descendants were race winners or otherwise important?
    • We could add a few more words about Sir Archy (Ealdgyth? Your source?) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Basically he was THE stallion of his time. Everything that is distinctly American about American Thoroughbreds traces to him. I'll throw something in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I've added some information, which probably needs a bit of copyediting. We don't really know how many of his offspring won races because there are no organized records from this time. The earliest compiled race records I have heard of date from the 1850's. Sir Archy died in 1833, and most of his offspring would have finished racing by the time compiled records started. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you variate verb or noun? This change meant a change in breeding practices
  • Periods of time after the Civil War are mentioned twice in the same paragraph.
    • Yes. And this is problem because...? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How about changing the second WWII to 1945?
    • WWII appears five times in the article, and in we don't mention dates, we just put in a wikilink for those who need that data. Is there an incorrect date that slipped by? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the last paragraph needs a topic sentence to state the many uses of Thoroughbred sires in the US. Otherwise, the many listed uses seem jumbled together.
  • Can something first arrive in two years?
    • DONE. Tweaked wording. Does that help? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What caused the "war damage" in France? To the horses because they were used in war or something else?
    • How much should we expand? In war, particularly WWI, horses were confiscated for calvary and draft use, they got eaten for horsemeat, turned loose to fend for themselves and never found again, farms are bombed, horses get shot, starved, but the source we cite doesn't get that specific, I don't think, I wouldn't want to get into the realm of OR...? Ealdgyth, did your source go into detail on "war damage"? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • As I recall, my source didn't really go into it. I can see what I have around, but basically it was because of confiscations, damage to stud farms, and other things that Montana described. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to read through the rest of the article thoroughly tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Had a few days of fun, including a quick trip to the ER...

  • I like the improvements made to the article portion I previously reviewed. It reads much better now, though not all my requests were met.
  • I went through and fixed minor problems, but I noticed the % sign is used, as well as "percent". It should be consistent throughout.
  • Change to Support. --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is it that we should use, % or percent? I never have been good with this MOS stuff. And ACK about the ER thing! Hope you're better. If you disagree with anything we've not done, go ahead and speak. I think we all want this to be the best article it can be, and given that we're all horse people, it's sometimes hard to see the jargon/context we assume. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Either is appropriate according to the MOS, as long as it is consistent throughout the article. I've had requests in my previous articles to change % to percent, but you can use either one. I'm better, though I'm sleeping a lot. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • This article is very good as far as it goes - but it doesn't say anything about what thoroughbreds are actually like. From my experience they tend to have particular temperaments and require a particular style of riding compared to less warmblooded types. Some people won't ride them and others won't ride anything else (i don't mean in racing - I mean ordinary riding). I know horses all differ but if, for example I was reading an article on Jack Russells and then one on labradors, I would expect to come out with some broad idea of their temperaments and personalities. Fainites barley 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is, that's stereotyping and horse people get very irate about it, either for or against. And honestly, our sources don't really talk about TB temprament much other than to say they are "hot-blooded". I'm more than happy to see sourced statements that detail it, but I haven't run across any. (Of course, the history section is the main section I worked on, Dana and the others did the rest. For some reason, they always leave me the history sections... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Ealdgyth. Saying "hot-blooded" says all that needs to be said, really. To go into detail about handling or, god forbid, a warmblood versus TB discussion will start edit wars. We most assuredly do NOT want to go there. Horrors! If the non-horse people think this article is already obscure and filled with jargon, heaven forbid we start discussing training and riding! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. Better out than impossible to present. Pity though. :-/ Fainites barley 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The sentence starting "while one genetic study" under "foundation stallions" has too many subclauses making it a mildly confusing read.Fainites barley 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've broken it into two sentences and tweaked the wording a bit. Does it read better now?Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - much better. (I've never understood this prejudice against the use of however. A most useful word in my view). Fainites barley 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.