Talk:Thoroughbred/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Questions

The article states that thoroughbread horses stand 64 inches high. Is this to the top of their head? How high does the rider sit? The article also does not state how much these horses generally weigh. Added this information would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

If they didn't wikilink hands in the article, someone needs to. All horses are always measured at the withers, thus the average Thoroughbred is 16 hands or 64 inches at the place where the horse's neck meets the back--the highest point on the horse when the horse has its neck lowered. The photos show where the rider sits and as for weight, that is quite variable but I suppose someone could find an average. 1,200 lbs is probably close. Montanabw 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


This article is quite incomplete. Half of the article is devoted to the breakdown rate and the possible causes of the breakdowns. It is severly lacking in a discussion about the history of the breed. Gcal1971 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So expand the history section. The article gets added to by those who are interested. If you have good historical material than can be properly verified and referenced, I'm sure we would all be glad to see it added! Montanabw 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, I will work on that. Gcal1971 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test drive any material, post it here if you want. Montanabw 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is about horse racingDog jumper100 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There may be a place for some work to be done jointly with the horse racing article. Possible the controversies section would fit better there. But, I don't have the time to do it. For now, I say, if you see a need to expand other sections, expand them. The article is not ready for anything like FA status, but it isn't getting dinged with the "exceeds 32 kb" tag, either, so there is room for expansion without getting into the realm of bloating. My motto: don't whine, fix it. If you are afraid people won't like your fixes, post them on this discussion page first and see who salutes. Montanabw 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins

This sentence - "All modern Thoroughbreds carry the genetics of three stallions imported to England from the Middle East in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: the Darley Arabian, to whom 95% of today's Thoroughbred pedigrees trace" .. shouldn't this be that 95% of all Thoroughbreds descend from the Darley Arabian in the male line? I'm pretty sure that 100% of Thoroughbreds descend in all lines from the Big Three ... and didn't I see a study somewhere that had a statistical analysis of the percentage of ancestry all of the ancestor stallions had contributed to the Thoroughbred that showed that one of the lesser known stallions actually contributed more to the Thoroughbred than one of the Big Three? Hm.. off to search the library....Ealdgyth | Talk 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Find the info, cite it, stick it in with footnotes and let's see how it holds up. Post a draft version here on this page if you want. Eclipse is also significant as far as appearing in an overwhelming majority of pedigrees and should be mentioned. Best to be fair and cite prevalance of all of the big three in pedigrees overall, the male line isn't the only significant source of genetic material, remember... <Grin> Montanabw 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Find the info? Ack! I was hoping someone else might have an idea of where to hunt down the information. Hm, I'll keep looking. Anyone else have any clue?Ealdgyth | Talk 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Google has always been my best friend (grin). Many times you can indirectly pick up the cite from other works that reference it even if you can't access it directly. The Jockey Club websites (USA and UK) may also have useful links. Montanabw 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

racing or the breed itself?

It seems to me this article is confused if it's about the thoroughbred horse as a breed or thoroughbred horse racing. I think the section discussing "controversies" in horse racing would be better moved to the horse racing article, which is in dire need of help (as I stated there). I also noticed there seemed to be very few in-text citations, but I'm not sure of WP's specific policy on this.

As a kid my forte was the TB and racing in general, so I'd like to see this article improve and do the breed some justice. Are thoroughbred lovers not as passionate as Arabian people? ;) There's quite a bit of squabbling over even the tiniest words over there... -jett

Sorry Montanabw -- I apparently skimmed the other comments inefficiently. I would love to make changes myself, but internet doesn't come out in the boonies where me 'n' my ponies live, so I'm making quick comments at work. If the cable companies ever discover that we have running water and even (gasp!) electricity where I live, I'll be the first one on the horse articles like flies on honey. -jett
I understand, I am editing at a whopping 28K dial up myself. My problem is that dealing only with horse articles still has me with something like 450 pages on my watchlist =:-O So I sort of try to dedicate myself to one major article improvement project at a time, and at the moment I have three, so this one is on the back burner. My thinking is that much of what is here could move to horse racing, but perhaps the thing to do is to tune up what's in horse racing first, then add this once the other article is better structured. Also note that there appears to be a UK horse racing article and a USA horse racing article, they might be suitable for merging. Just going through the categories and figuring out what's here can be a chore--I had to merge three separate articles people had started on Pottok pony, just as an example...multiple spellings and no redirects created confusion... sigh... Montanabw 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
When I get a chance, I'll try to at least get some citations into this article. I agree the controversies part could probably move to Thoroughbred Racing, as it's pretty much directly related to racing. I'm not really up on the current debates about the breakdown rate and such, so I'll steer clear of that. Let me get through getting the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame into shape first.. And I'm still hunting for that reference on the percentage of ancestry!Ealdgyth | Talk 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Threw some sources and in-line citations up. Let me know if they look good before I go digging deeper for more to flesh things out. Probably need a section on Thoroughbreds in Great Britain, France, Italy (Tesio anyone?), Australia and anywhere else they race. My library is almost exclusivly United States oriented, and pretty much devoted to Thoroughbreds before 1950 or so, since the main purpose of my library is to support my research in Quarter horse bloodlines. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like someone else to take over writing? I have still have some reservations about the way this article has been structure and its empahiases (sp.) on thoroughbred injuries. --Gcal1971 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the article needs to first be organized, then some decisions made about whether to move some material into the horse racing article (which, by the way, is way worse off than this one, if you are looking for a rehab project). My thinking is that the injuries content needs to be SOMEWHERE, whether here or in the racing article, and the question of whether TBs have genetically reached the limits of their abilities, are raced too young, etc. is definitely required for complete and unbiased coverage of the topic ("everything's coming up roses" is as POV as too much negative), a "controversies" section that "teaches the controversy" often fends off POV edits later. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

English thoroughbred

As the breed this article is describing is "English thoroughbred" and the word thoroughbred applies to different breads of animals (OED: 2. Of a horse: Of pure breed or stock; spec. applied to a race-horse whose pedigree for a given number of generations is recorded in the studbook. Also of a dog, bull, etc.), I think that this article should be moved to English thoroughbred --Philip Baird Shearer 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the use of the word "thoroughbred" to mean "purebred" has come mainly from people who were confused as to its true meaning, and that definition has now become a generalized term used by the public. I've never heard a knowledgeable horse person refer to their horse as a thoroughbred unless it was a horse of that breed, whereas my friends ask "you have a Thoroughbred cross? How can you have a Thoroughbred cross?" It’s just the misinformed public. And speculating (and this is ONLY speculation) I think the name "Thoroughbred" has always been held in high-esteem as a status symbol because the horses were considered fine-quality stock in the 17th century. You can still see this idea today, in movies directed at the non-horsie public, where the characters talk about "blue-blooded thoroughbreds" because they know the public idea of the Thoroughbred are the million-dollar racehorses they see Derby Day on TV. This idea has carried over to people today who equate "high quality" with "purebred". Which is, of course, utter BS. But seeing that purebred dogs and cats sell for a lot more than any mutt, why wouldn't they think the same thing is true for horses?
Also, calling it the "English Thoroughbred" can cause problems, as many horses are listed as American, French, English, New Zealand, etc Thoroughbreds simply by where they were bred. So if you look down the pedigrees of horses at a competition, one might be listed as a New Zealand TB, another as an American TB. Eventer 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe this issue has been settled, in Eventer's favor. See new "word use" section. I just settled an edit war with someone else over this. SIgh... Montanabw(talk) 07:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Families

More comment could be made concerning the Thoroughbred families, their numbers and Lowe, Bobinski etc. Cgoodwin 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a whole separate article, perhaps titled "Thoroughbred bloodlines" or something. Anything else will bog down this already long article. Maybe see what the folks at WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing think. But if you check the category links, you will find, quite literally HUNDREDS of articles on various individual racehorses. All I know is that whenever horses start to be named (other than now-dead ones that were foundation stock), before you know it, the list is absolutely endless and someone is always offended because their animal wasn't included. I will admit that TB's are a little different--for TBs, where the stud book was closed in the early 1800's (?), there is an argument to me made for a basic history piece--can't the whole breed can now be traced to what, something like 19 animals total? At least, that's my thinking. Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing mention of all the foundation mares,but I think that mention of the basic developement of some these families should be included as these family numbers are included today in many sale catalogues. A basic explanation is all that should be required. Initially Bruce Lowe named and numbered about 45 English families that were the very foundation of this breed and then there are all of the Bobinski families, quite a lot in all! Time has proven that families are very important in the breeding of Tbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgoodwin (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a "sandbox" here to work up at least a summary paragraph. Or an article titled "Thoroughbred breeding." I don't disagree, but once you get past the Darley Arabian, the Godolphin Arabian and the Byerly Turk in a general overview article, most people just glaze over. However, a paragraph in this article with worldwide basics would work with a link to a more detailed article for those with an interest. POV will, of course, be a problem, but if we don't go past, say, 1900, we might get away with it! <grin> Take a look at the section on foundation bloodlines in American Quarter Horse to get an idea of the length and general style I am thinking of. Montanabw(talk) 07:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Below I have included a rough outline of the various families. The important part is to indicate that Tbs are recorded by families and to advise what the family numbers are. Any and all help appreciated. Family Bloodlines and Thoroughbred Heritage have very good, well researched sites for more detailed info.
What has to happen here is citation. See WP:CITE. If TB bloodlines are like bloodlines anywhere else in the horse world, there are some potential controversies (just for example, I have heard that modern TBs all trace to only 26 familes today, I have heard yet another source say it was 17 or19. I don't care, I don't raise TBs, but that's an example). I would go post something over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and see if anyone more knowledgable on bloodlines than myself will weigh in. I also dispute that TBs worldwide are the most numerous breed. What are the statistics, what are the numbers, or, as they put it on the playground, "who says?" (grin) (For one thing, can they top the American Quarter Horse, which is the 10,000 lb godzilla in terms of breed growth? I don't know the answer, but I need to see objective stats from someplace like the FAO or at least the Jockey Club itself) I'm not being mean here, I just know what is expected and this is one where I have neither the time nor the motivation to do the actual edit. But what I will do is put a hidden reflist tag beneath your draft so any footnotes you add will show up here. God luck! Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If I wasn't leaving for a long trip, I'd dig into those citations, I probably have at least some of the books that detail the whole Bobinski and Lowe system. It's as arcane as say.. Arabian strains that Raswan was pushing for so long. Some folks swear by the Lowe/Bobinski method of breeding, others swear it's nonsense. I don't actually own Lowe or Bobinski, copies are too pricey for my blood, and they never really impacted much on my main interest in TBs, which is how the TB impacted the QH, but I probably have SOME sources on the stuff, just no time to put it in, honestly. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the ommission. Here are some references: LOWE, Bruce: "Breeding Horses by the Figure System"; fascimile, 1977 Montgomery, E. S. The Thoroughbred New York: Arco Publishing, 1973

Thoroughbred Bloodlines: http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Families/FamilyNumbers.htm Thoroughbred Heritage: http://www.tbheritage.com/HistoricDams/FamilyNumbers.html

There are many more if needed. The low numbered families are still producing a lot of winners yet, but this may be attributable to larger numbers in those families? These numbers are certainly very helpful in research though. I’m sure that there are people out there that sometimes wonder what these numbers represent and how pedigrees are arranged, judging from the errors seen. I have contributed to the Colonial Taproot Mares sections in the links above. Some of the above many families are now extinct and I would not bother to expand on the above.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to engage in a little "tough love" now C, (grin) and make YOU put specific stuff into footnotes in your text above! The ref tag I already added (not visible until you edit the page) should make them appear just beneath it. I can help tweak the formatting if it gets weird. For multiple refs to the same source, I recommend using the form <ref name="Name of source"> author, title of article, title of book or periodical, publishing info, etc...</ref> and then every time you use the same source later, you just have to put <ref name="Name of source"/> and so you don't have to constantly retype. See WP:CITE for more help. Have fun! Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I gone wrong?? Sorry!Cgoodwin (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I used the "nowiki" tag so what I was doing would show up in the text, you don't use it in the editing. I will fix. Montanabw(talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Families sandbox

Thoroughbred horses are traced through the distaff or female line, known as their family, to the beginning of the General Stud Book (GSB). This was done because the mares produce many less foals than the sires do.[citation needed] Thoroughbred Stud books around the world cite pedigrees in tail female style as: sire – 1st dam (ie mother) - dam sire – 2nd dam (ie maternal grand dam) – and her sire etc. Horses that come from “good’ families will usually command better prices than one with an inferior family.

In about 1895 an Australian, Bruce Lowe wrote a treatise titled Breeding Racehorses by the Figure System. This work formulated a system of family numbers from the GSB mares as explained by Lowe: “The figures are derived from a statistical compilation of the winners of the three great English classic races , Derby, Oaks and (St )Leger. The family with the largest number of wins is No. 1, the next No. 2 and so on up to No. 34, though the figures actually run up to 43 and include families whose descendants have not won a classic race".”[1]

For example, Old Bald Peg (6) is one of the earliest taproot dams, foaled c. 1650. Most, if not all modern Tbs trace their ancestry to her, through their sire and/or dam.[citation needed]

During the 1950s Captain Kaziemierz Bobinski and Count Zamoyski co-operated to produce the monumental work, Family Tables of Racehorses. This work expanded Bruce Lowe's numbering system of GSB families and included families from other nations:

  • Families 1-74 trace directly to a mare in the General Stud Book
  • Families A1-A37 descend from American Stud Book mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
  • Families Ar1-Ar2 are Argentinian families
  • Families B1-B26 trace directly to Prior's Half-Bred Studbook
  • Families C1-C16 are described in the Australian Stud Book as approved Colonial Families
  • Families C17-C33 descend from Australian and New Zealand mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
  • Families P1-P2 are Polish families

Bobinski later updated his works and split Lowe's families into sub categories (family 1 taproot, Tregonwell's Natural Barb Mare”.[1] was sub-divided into 1-a [whose taproot mare was Bonny Lass], 1-b, 2-a etc). These numbers often follow a horse’s name in sale catalogues and pedigrees, much like a numerical surname. Today these family numbers are very helpful for checking the accuracy of pedigrees.Cgoodwin (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Lowe, Bruce. Breeding Racehorses Racehorses by the Figure System, (publisher name here) 1977 edition.
I have appended my citations as I don’t wish to muck up any more of your work. Please feel free to slash and burn as required. Thank you very much for your long suffering patience and help.

Thoroughbred horses are traced through the distaff or female line, known as their family, from the beginning of the General Stud Book. This was done because the mares produce many less foals than the sires do.(footnote 1) Thoroughbred Stud books around the world cite pedigrees in tail female style as: sire – 1st dam (ie mother) - dam sire – 2nd dam (ie maternal grand dam) – and her sire etc. Horses that come from “good’ families will usually command better prices than one with an inferior family.(footnote 2) The horses listed below may indicate an example of this.

Snaafi Dancer (6) [family #6], a bay colt purchased by Sheikh Mohammed for $US10,200,000 and did not race. Retired to stud in 1986, he was found to have a fertility problem and only produced 4 offspring, three named and one un-named foal.(footnote 3)

Tommy Smith bought Tulloch (24) [family #24] for 750 guineas in 1956 at the Trentham Yearling Sales in NZ. He was one of Australia's best racehorses having 53 starts for 36 wins, 12 seconds and 4 thirds during his racing career.(footnote 4)

In about 1895 an Australian, Bruce Lowe wrote: “Breeding Racehorses by the Figure System”. This work formulated a system of family numbers from the GSB mares as explained by Lowe: “The figures are derived from a statistical compilation of the winners of the three great English classic races , Derby, Oaks and (St )Leger. The family with the largest number of wins is No. 1, the next No. 2 and so on up to No. 34, though the figures actually run up to 43 and include families whose descendants have not won a classic race”. He goes on to write “My own impression is that even these three great progenitors (referring to the 3 foundation sires) owe their survival and fame mostly to the female lines they were mated with. The Figure system is based mainly upon identifying and tracing the origin of these female lines”. (footnote 5)

Old Bald Peg (6) is one of the earliest tap-root dams, having been foaled in c. 1635. Most, if not all modern Tbs trace their ancestry to her, through their dam and/or sire.(footnote 6) Many horses were linebred or inbred to her, which increased the chances of such an early mare appearing in pedigrees of Tbs and quite a few other horses, too. (footnote 7 and 8) During the 1950’s Captain Kaziemierz Bobinski and Count Zamoyski co-operated to produce the monumental work Family Tables of Racehorses (footnote 9), commonly known as the Bobinski Tables. This work expanded Bruce Lowe's numbering system and identified a total of 74 families tracing to mares in the GSB. There were mares in several countries whose pedigrees had been lost or whose descendants had been bred up from Arabians etc and were unacceptable at that time to the Stud Books concerned. The Family Table of Racehorses expanded research into these female families of racehorses not traceable to the GSB, including:

  • Families A1-A37 descend from American Stud Book mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
  • Families Ar1-Ar2 are Argentinian families
  • Families B1-B26 trace directly to Prior's Half-Bred Studbook
  • Families C1-C16 are described in the Australian Stud Book as approved Colonial Families
  • Families C17-C33 descend from Australian and New Zealand mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
  • Families P1-P2 are Polish families

Bobinski later updated his works and split Lowe's families into sub categories (family 1 taproot, Tregonwell's Natural Barb Mare was sub-divided into 1-a [whose taproot mare was Bonny Lass], 1-b, 2-a etc). These numbers often follow a horse’s name in sale catalogues and pedigrees, much like a numerical surname. Today these family numbers are very helpful for checking the accuracy of pedigrees and comparing the contributions made by mares and their families.


1 and 2 “Blood Will Tell” by Miles Napier; J A Allen, London p. 17-18

3 http://www.pedigreequery.com/snaafi+dancer

4 http://www.pedigreequery.com/tulloch

5 "Breeding Racehorses by the Figure System”, compiled by Bruce Lowe, Edited by William Allison; The Field and Queen, London, facsimile, 1977; p. 2

6 Look here for racing's roots: http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/2003/10/13/258161.html

7 Inbreeding: http://www.highflyer.supanet.com/inbreeding.htm

8 http://www.wildhorseadvertising.com/

9 Bloodlines: http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Notes/ReferenceBooks.htm

<<Links>> Family Numbers: http://www.reines-de-course.com/family_numbers.htm

Family Numbers: http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Families/FamilyNumbers.htm

I can't come up with an on the spot citation for the numbers, and the Tb and QH do their tallying differently. In North America I have no doubt that the QH are well ahead. Scrap that line! Cgoodwin (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm enough of a doofus that I'm not sure what goes where. How about you put (footnote 1) or something equally obvious that ties the location to your list and then I can format it, you can double check to see if I put the right thing in the right spot. Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for the confusion! I have included the footnotes and hope that they now make sense. Cgoodwin (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. Now all I need is the time to actually do the work. Be patient, if you can. Montanabw(talk) 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts of GA

I'm beginning to work on this article in order to ready it for a nomination to Good Article status. The article really needs some work on organization, references, general cleanup and some expansion. If you have suggestions, comments, or would like to help, please feel free to post here or BE BOLD! As for my plans - I am first going to work on the cleanup and organization, then look to see what needs expansion. If you see things that look halfway done...they probably are! I'm working on this as I have time, and I may have to stop in the middle of some edits. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. The origins section needs serious expansion. Probably could use a section on numbers of Thoroughbreds around the world. France, UK, South America, New Zealand, India, Australia, the US, ... other spots? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your changes to date, on these big articles, my own approach is pretty similar.
  1. First, clean up what's there in terms of wordsmithing, wikilinking, footnoting, fixing obvious errors
  2. Then, eliminate redundancies and see if headings and organization should be rearranged
  3. After that, add in any new sections that may have been missing
  4. Reduce all of the above by ruthless editing of excess verbiage
  5. Then rewrite 50 quadzillion times! (grin)

If we can whip this one into shape, the next challenge is horse racing and several related articles that are a disorganized disaster! Although for WikiProject Equine, I think horse tack and equine conformation may rank higher on the priority list, given that horse racing has its own project, however inactive it appears to be at the moment. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to whack this article with my patented GA-pre-review-needs-facts-tag-crusade ... some of these I should be able to find citations for, but I get to go tractor shopping later today (just what every girl wants to do near Valentine's day... almost as much fun as the year I got a pistol for V's day!) so I'll have to come back to these tonight or tomorrow.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do so! I've added a ton of citations, but I know there are sections that are still sketchy. The origins section especially need referencing and expansion, and the breed characteristics isn't so hot either. I'll be working on this article more over the weekend as well, so between us we should be able to make some fairly significant headway. Have fun tractor shopping...right now we're dealing with baby goats that decided to arrive 2 weeks early in the middle of the night in below zero temps...how fun! Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll take tractor shopping, ugh! I will attempt to get to the origins section. Also, we need to reference to something besides All-Breed Pedigree Database for pedigrees, because anyone can edit that database, it's not a safe site. I have a number of TB history books, so I'll cite the heights from those tonight or tomorrow. We can leave the All Breed in in addition, so someone can see it online, but it needs a non-wiki-type cite also (annoying as it is.) And on the card for tonight or tomorrow is the expansion of the origins section also, I have the books, I just gotta find the time.... Ealdgyth | Talk 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Be careful to fact tag stuff rather than blank it, (some good material got blanked simply for being uncited a while back...don't think it was you guys) some of it is my old edits, I probably can find sites for some of it. (Fixed the definition thing). Montanabw(talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There, I think I've got the major breeding countries covered with at least stub sections. Expansion from there should be relatively easy, I hope. I'm going to make a pass at citations and then call it a night. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I ran through and did a round of cleanup, a little rearranging and found some sources. (Cool article on the Y-Chromosome Darley Arabian thing, FYI). OK with me to just let it cook for a bit. There is something missing, not sure what, somehow it just doesn't tie together. I think it's a question of organization more than content, not sure. I asked one of the Australian editors to give it a peek. Dana can also look over what we did if her baby goats let her! I want a tractor SOOO bad, how expensive are relatively new, good used ones these days, anyway? Montanabw(talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We're getting there. I'll try to take a peek at the hidden comments (after I wake up and get my caffeine.) I'm going to ditch the Marguerite Henry citation though, as soon as we find something better. I think that one might not fly at GA (laughs). As for tractors, we're looking at baby ones, just enough for a posthole digger and front loader. $4K new. Not sure used, it was raining too much to hit the used places yesterday. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done for a bit. Next? Ealdgyth | Talk 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Are all updated to use the citation template, so I don't have to try to remember whether the period goes after the author or before the publisher or whatever. I am PROBABLY done for a bit. I can only handle working on an article so long before i go insane. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, agreed. Nice work on the citations. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Push toward GA

Starting a new section for easier editing...

My thoughts are that what is needed next is:

  • An expanded/improved lead section
  • Expansions of the last three subsections of the History section. They appear far too short in comparison to the other sections.
  • A cleanup of the breed lines section. It's well-referenced but rather hard to read/understand.

One concern (partly in response to Countercanter's remarks on Montana's talk page) is that we don't want too much information that should be in the horse racing articles here. A summary is good, but for the most part we should just point them to those articles as the "main" ones. This article is already fairly long, and having redundant information will make it start to be yawn-inspiring, IMHO.

I'm not sure how much work I'll be able to do on the article over the next couple of days. We're having a fairly severe ice storm over my part of the country right at the moment, and it's threatening to cut off power and basically shut everything down, so I'm not sure how much access I'll have to the internet (lovely dial-up away from work!). I'll get on as much as possible, but I'm not sure how much help I'll be in the last stages toward GA. The article is looking great though...much better than it did a week or so ago! Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading out of town Wed and will be gone until Monday night (Vegas, baby, Vegas!) so chances of much more work happening aren't going to be good. The history sections need some expansion, but they do need coverage, so we don't get accusations of US and/or UK bias in the article. TB Heritage is a great site, as is National Museum of Racing and [Bloodlines.net. This one is from Australia RIRDC site, not sure how much is on there that is useful. I left a pile of links on Montana's talk page also. I have a lot of stuff in books, the problem is finding it, as some of the books aren't indexed. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on the breed lines, trying to make it less eye-crossing and more readable for people who aren't breed experts. Please feel free to edit more...

NOTE: In the first quote it says Lowe developed 43 families, later, in the second to last paragraph, it says he developed 50. I don't have the sources, so could someone please fix this contradiction? Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There 43 families in his book. More families were traced later by others. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the error. Perhaps I should have mentioned that horses by the same sire are not termed as related unless there is a maternal connection. Thoughts?? Cgoodwin (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say yes, if you can keep it concise, clear and easy for the non-expert to understand. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Half brothers and sisters are horses which have the same dam but a different sire(not applied to horses by the same sire). Cgoodwin (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Add it in and reference it (using the templates, please, there are examples for both web and books already in that section). We can tweak it later if necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

History Section

I'm not being able to find much online about the history of Thoroughbreds in Australia/New Zealand, Japan and South America. What would you all think about combining these sections into one and titling it something like "Thoroughbreds Around the World" or "Thoroughbreds in Other Locations"? On the other hand, if people have more info on these sections, I would love to see them expanded...I'm just not having much luck doing it myself!

I know that Ealdgyth is out of town and Montana's been busy with some rather large brush fires, but comments would be appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

CGoodwin is good on Australian stuff, ask her. I think that Au/NZ will probably wind up staying in its own section once she is done adding material, but otherwise, combining the sections into an "around the world" section would work, at least until each nation is more than a single paragraph. I mean, there is Japan, South America, South Africa, Dubai...the list is truly endless, and articles on every nation in the world, well, look at the mess horse racing is in...!

As for other large brush fires, WHY ME GOD!!!???!!! It really IS called quality control, I just have one nerve left, ARRGH! (OK, trying to find an LOL here too!) I need a hug... Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have recently started to research the history of racing in Australia with the intent of adding to the Thoroughbred racing in Australia article - it may take a while. You may find the following links useful in expanding the existing article content:

Congratulations Dana boomer on your work on this article. - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the TB in america section, it should be reasonably complete now. I'm going to work on the European section a bit shortly. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GA push, revisited

I agree the flow could be better. I'm thinking some of it is the location of the first three sections, the ones on Word usage, breed characteristics and age. It might be worth sitting down and thinking of a standardized format for the breed articles, so that they all share the same framework and order. But in this particular case, I think that the word and age sections are too minor for major section, and need to be incorporated somewhere else, at the very least at the end of the article. I'm still not sure where the Breed Lines subsection fits best at. Honestly, it'd probably be best to put that information into their own article, and deal with Bobinski numbers, Lowe families, and dosage in that article. Call it "Thoroughbred Breeding theories" or something like that. In light of that .. I have The Theory and Science of Thoroughbred Genetics on pre-order, which might be nice to incorporate into this article eventually. Dana mentioned that she's concerned about a few sources, mind listing them so we can work on replacing them? Ealdgyth | Talk 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The specific questionable references are numbers 12, 62, 73 and 77. Also, there is a question about the differences between the two French studbooks in the TB's in Europe History section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Took care of 73 and 77. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Got the last two. The French Stud Book is beyond me. What's there accurately reflects what's in the source, but if we knock it out it won't hurt my feelings. We could just say that the French Stud Book was founded in whatever and leave off the Societe bit. I don't read French at all, so finding information is going to be difficult. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we perhaps combine the age section with the breed characteristics section, and then the terminology section at the bottom of the breed lines part with the word use section and call the whole thing "terminology"? This would get rid of some of the shorter sections... I agree that the complicated breed lines stuff should probably have its own article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Go ahead and do that while I work on finding other citations for 12 and 62. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, the new article has been created, and the sections rearranged. I'm going to quit editing for a while, so we don't mess each other up. I'll check in later tonight and see what's up. Feel free to rewrite the breed lines article/section, I basically did a copy, paste, and quick summary. Dana boomer (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm done for now, I think. I really don't get into Bobinski numbers and the Figure System and all that stuff... so I really can't help much on the article. It's important stuff, and very notable for Thoroughbred breeding, I just don't have much information on it. I should probably try to expand the General Stud Book and American Stud Book articles, huh? I figure we pester CounterCanter, Cuddy, Cora and Montana to look this over and then do the nitpicky copyediting before the GA nomination. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds does have a rough template. However, if we look to the layout of our previous GAs, Appaloosa and Arabian horse, maybe that will give us something more solid, to the extent that the structure of those articles differs from the project outline. Both share the characteristics of being breeds with a LOT of historical stuff, and the Arabian article has a number of sections related to different nations. I like the idea of breaking out the breeding theories section, haven't read the new article yet,,, I actually think I am starting to get the system a little, but Cgoodwin is the one who created that section and seems to know it best. As for overall organizing, if you have a spare ream of paper, sometimes the thing to do is to just print out the article, spread it out on the floor, and look at the entire thing at once. Another useful tool is to just look at the outline that is automatically generated and see if the sections are arranged in a sensible way. I am sort of clearing out the remnants of my little brush fire in the tack articles, but I will TRY to give this a good look see over the next couple of days. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA push, again...

GA pre-pre-review...

  • In the lead, consider changing "English mares" to "native mares" - Done
  • The lead is pretty choppy feeling with the prose. Lots of short sentences in the second paragraph that might be better off combined, or (my preference) expanded.
  • Lead does feel skimpy. Right now the article is holding at about 51K characters, which WP:LEDE says means about three or four paragraphs. They should probably be a bit bigger.
  • Terminology section ...Okay, explain to me again why we have the general statement about half-brothers and sisters in the TB article? I'm not sure it's really needed, honestly. - Moved to horse breeding article
  • The statement that "...in modern usage, horse aficionados consider it a sign of ignorance to refer to any horse as a "thoroughbred" unless it is a pedigreed Thoroughbred recorded with a recognized breed registry." needs a citation. I THINK I might have one ... I just need to find it.
  • HOrse racing subsection (Under Uses) the third paragraph fits oddly there. Might it not fit better somewhere else or being eliminated It's really more of a racing issue than a strict breed issue. - Moved to horse racing article

I don't claim to have caught every bit of awkward prose. I've stared at this article too much to be able to do that! Honestly, if we could find out more about foreign breeding statistics and stuff, we're getting close to FA on this. Or at least closer. I'm going to set up archiving on this page too, it's starting to get a bit long. Anyone object to MizaBot archiving it automatically, say after 30 days? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm so tired after other wikiwars that I can't see an article straight right now; maybe tomorrow when I have access to a big desktop computer and a faster connection... Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No objections to MizaBot. I'll start working on your comments... Dana boomer (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I marked off above the ones that I've completed. I expanded the lead some, but it still needs more work. Some tweaking is still in order in the history summary I think, it feels off to me but I can't get it to read right. I don't know, maybe you'll have better luck! Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts and suggestions: Possibly move the "Terminology" section (a minor section) to after "Uses" and before "Controversies". In the lead, either delete the sentence about terminology or move it to the end of the lead paragraph. In the second sentence of the lead remove "as it is known today". I question the "believe" that 500,000 Thoroughbreds exist today. Where did New Scientist get that number. The only figures I have been able to find are from The Jockey Club Factbook THOROUGHBRED RACING AND BREEDING WORLDWIDE which show 195,304 Brood mares worldwide and an annual foal crop of 118,462. These numbers would suggest that a Thoroughbred popluation of 500,000 is probably a little lite. Thanks to everyone for the great work on this article. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Finally getting around to replying to this... IMHO, the terminology section is good where it is, just to get that info across right off the bat (both in the lede and the actual section itself), so that people looking for a definition of "purebred" can find what they're looking for, as opposed to reading through the whole article and realizing that they're actually reading about a specific breed. I tweaked the section on the numbers to make it slightly clearer and add some more stats. Hopefully it's better now... Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
While I was out of town last week, I picked up a new book that hopefully will help with this article, and the history section. At least it finally clarified that pesky French Stud book issue. Now to find the time to get it into the article... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, added in the information. I suggest we add in the bits about the worldwide broodmare numbers in place of the 500,000. JC is likely to be a bit more accurate than the other source. Now... someone volunteer to copyedit this puppy? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on the history section. I've tweaked the population numbers in both the registration section and the intro, as I found a JC source that cited almost 1.3 million TBs in the US alone...definitely not 500k worldwide! Should be better now, but feel free to tweak. I did a bit of copyediting, and I'll probably take a couple more runs through today making minor changes. Should we nominate now, since the GA process is a bit backed up and it could take a while to get a review? Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's make the copyedit passes. Sometimes your article will attract attention from someone interested in the subject and get reviewed quicker. There is not requirement that reviewers go in order of nominations, so it is best to be mostly ready when you put it up. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm cheering for you , gang, but still in wiki-hell, so can't help here. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana's doing great work dealing with my choppy prose! We're getting there. Think we could get User:Gwinva to do a pass through and copyedit? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva says she'll look it over after things calm down within the next two weeks. Otherwise, it's looking pretty good. I'll try to do a copyedit pass this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's me! I've been through and made a few minor changes, removing the odd wordiness and fixing a couple of grammar/punctuation points. I might pop back in a few days, as I usually miss heaps the first run through (too busy reading). Looks pretty good, though. Gwinva (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

I pulled out the last redlinks, they need articles, but I'm not going to get to them any time soon. No sense holding the redlink for them. We're looking good on size, 43K of readable prose. A bit higher than most FA's, but not by much. Readablity tests shows nothing horrid. Let Gwinva look it over again and we'll see what happens. Dana's done great work here! Now to work on Horse.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone else is OK, I say put it up! Go, go, go! Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm being polite and waiting for Gwinva to tell us she's done. (yes, I know, me polite, but I can be sometimes...) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you going for GA or FA here?? Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
GA first, I think. Committee prose can use all the help it can get, and if we get a good GA reviewer (Which will probably happen, certain folks like picking apart things I nominate, which is good for the article in the end) it will be as good as a PR. If that happens, GA then I'll pester a friend to do a copyedit and then FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As soon as Gwinva gives the go-ahead, I say put it up for GA! Your plan for the path to FA sounds good, Ealdgyth. Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! I did do a second sweep, just never mentioned it here. I think it's ready to list. (Nice of you to wait for me to join the party!) Gwinva (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Put it up as a joint nom. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 18, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly very well-written, but there are some nagging issues in the Terminology section. To the new reader, the section felt like it was biased, and strayed from simply stating the facts. It uses rather prescriptive, instructional-sounding language; phrases like "it should" are not really encyclopedic in nature (an encyclopedia describes, it does not advise). Blankly calling the non-breed usage of thoroughbred incorrect smacks of dictating what is correct (or not) in horse terminology. The alternative I see is to say that modern enthusiasts, breeders, owners or what-have-you think it's incorrect. The last sentence of the section is likewise inappropriate, and should be removed entirely. Other than that problematic section, the prose is well-written and a joy to read.
2. Factually accurate?: Meets and exceeds the GA criteria for in-line citation use. Great work! However, there are a few issues at hand: you use the ref syntax to further explain concepts and facts, rather provide citations. Ref numbers 14 and 7 stand out as being examples of inappropriate usage. Such statements do not verify anything, and thus shouldn't be a part of the References. Either include them in the text, or remove them. Last, you replicate some reference materials in entire several times as footnotes. It's not a pass/fail issue, but I would suggest creating a separate section to contain the full book reference, so you can just cite the author and page numbers in your footnote. It'll be much clearer verification that way.
3. Broad in coverage?: Certainly broad in coverage.
4. Neutral point of view?: This is also largely a readability issue, but WP:NPOV also touches upon it (without forbidding it outright). Generally speaking, maintaining segregated controversy section is a poor idea. As the controversies about the breed has to do with its health and breeding, I suggest merging these with appropriate sections. I'll let you decide where this might be, whether it's health, history or Registration, breeding, and population (which, btw, is a really long section title. can you think of a better term to include all those?).
5. Article stability? Obviously stable, no edit wars, etc.
6. Images?: All images have proper licensing and source info. I would suggest changing to a lead image that has better composition (the current one is too bright and is a bit blurry), though that's just a suggestion. Also, note that WP:MOS#Images discourages separating headers from text with left aligned images.


For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If Dana doesn't get to these issues by Monday, I'll be home and able to take care of them Tuesday. None of them look that difficult to resolve, I don't think. Dana's done most of the non-history editing, so I'll defer to her on that, unless she can't deal with it. I'll get the extraneous footnotes out if I have time while I'm on the road, otherwise Tuesday. Sound good? Ealdgyth - Talk 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I dealt with the footnotes and the last sentence of the terminology section. Will drop a note on Dana's page about the others Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I'm in no hurry for the rest. Regards, VanTucky 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple issues with VanTucky's analysis. Not that we can't make improvements in style, but I am not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. First off, Thoroughbred, at least when applied to horses, IS a proper noun and DOES have to be capitalized. (God knows I've had to fix it enough times in other articles. ) I think it is an important point to make, even if we have to reword it somehow. On a related note, we can tone down the correct/incorrect language, but it is in fact just plain dead wrong in the horse world to call any purebred horse a "thoroughbred" except for Thoroughbreds. We can say it nicely, but it must be said. Somehow.
The second issue is that I really think it is appropriate to segregate off the controversies and identify them as such. Doing so avoids future edit wars, and these issues are in fact debatable. It is possible that some could be lumped into other sections, but they don't all fit that neatly. Third, please show me any guideline that says that a footnote must only contain a citation and cannot also be used to provide parenthetical data that is of minor importance to hardcore aficionados. I am thinking in particular the Byerley Turk comment that was removed. Some info is fairly trivial, but if not noted somewhere, somehow, it will be edited and commented upon later. Footnotes in books are sometimes used to provide such information, why not here?
I wish there was an ideal lead image, but this is better than what there was before, that's all I can say. If anyone has links to something better, please shoot us the link. I have to say this is the first time I have heard an image called "too" bright! LOL! So that's my two bits, but I shall defer to the more active editors for now. Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree on the terminology section, I know you love your definition/etimology sections, but it doesn't flow well with the article and I'd rather less emphasis was laid on it, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, I will worry about it later, when I get home. I don't have any books to help reference a new terminology section here with me, so it'll have to wait until I get home. The footnotes on the Byerley turk would be more important in the article on him, where we can go into more detail. same for the color's, and if folks want to edit it in here, we can just refer them to the fuller articles on the BT and the colors where the information fits better. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We can move it or otherwise not make it too dominant if that helps the GA nom go through. (It can even go at the end, as does the one in mare (horse)). But yes, I do think they are useful, (I can't help it, I had an English minor) and truth is, when there are a lot of misunderstandings and misuses, they can even be a public service! LOL! As for the color ref, it's OK to toss it and I think the Byerlyy Turk article does address the Turkoman issue, so that's not a biggie, either. I guess my gripe was more on the general principle that a footnote can be for more than a citation, can it not? Montanabw(talk) 06:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree that we need some sort of a terminology section, as no-one who is truly a horse person uses the term "thoroughbred" to describe a purebred of another breed, but people just learning about horses might, without knowing the difference. As I've argued before, if someone came to this article trying to find out what a purebred horse was, there should be something to tell them that this is not the right article. I will agree that moving it farther down the article might be best.
I'm about to toss the footnotes that aren't actually references. I agree with Montana on the general principle thing, but for the moment that's not what we're arguing.
I also think that we should keep the controversies section seperate, as these are ongoing issues that influence all aspects of the Thoroughbred world and have parts in their history, breed characteristics, the sports they are used in, and basically everything else about them as a breed.Dana boomer (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I've tossed the remaining non-reference footnotes. Feel free to change if I messed anything up! VanTucky, what are your thoughts on what there is remaining to do? Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're all hesitant to integrate a controversy section, then that's up to you. I don't think it's a pass/fail issue, though I do think it's NPOV. Highlighting controversy by putting it in a special section, rather than the in the natural flow of facts about history, breeding and health, is likely to draw more attention to it artificially and make the article unbalanced. The spirit of NPOV means that criticism and controversy isn't given any special treatment. But whatever you want to do is still GA, since it's written and cited well. As for terminology, it is the convention (especially for FA candidates in my experience) to have the terminology section come first. I would strongly recommend undoing the move. Thank you for the work on the style of the section, it's much better (though "horse world" is pretty ambiguous to the uninitiated, a more specific, less colloquial term would be better). Let me know what you want to do with the above-mentioned sections, and I'll pass the article. Thanks very much for your work, VanTucky 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've undone the move of the terminology section. My vote will still be to keep the controversies and terminology sections as is. Ealdgyth and Montana, your views? Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at it later tonight. We're going down to the Bellagio to eat/shop/gawk. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No moral issues involved, I'm OK with keeping both controversies and terminolgy sections, obviously. I'm happy with it as is. I just like to spat with VanTucky! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We probably should move the controversies, etc. into the main text, if we're going to go to FAC. FAC prefers that the sections not be separate, and we'll just run into this issue again at FAC. I added a backup print ref for the terminology section, just to keep thinks working (I really dislike googlebooks refs, as they aren't always accessable to all folks). What else needs to be dealt with besides the controversies? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that this is important, than by all means switch them over. I really have no idea where they would go in the rest of the article, or I'd do it myself. Also, do we want to switch the book references over as VanTucky suggested? Would we use the same cite book template we're using now? Let me know, and I can work on this. Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you guys are discussing some of the issues I brought up. I'll say again that I agree with Ealdgyth, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the future FAC. Since you're still working on those (obviously you did the GA nom for a preliminary effort before your goal of FA), and otherwise it meets the criteria, I'll pass it soon. Thanks for all your hard work, it looks superb. VanTucky 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(tickles Van) I'm a she. Look up Ealdgyth sometime. The book thing you'd want it to look somewhat like Easy Jet, where you use a short ref in the notes and just the cite template in the references section. Let me look at the TB article in a bit and see if I see a good spot for the controversy stuff. I was so focused on the history stuff before I didn't really look at the rest of the article at the end of our editing stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on switching the book references over. I doubt I'll get them all done tonight, so things might be kind of messy for a little bit. I'll try not to totally screw everything up :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm done for the moment, if anyone else wants to have a crack at playing with the article. I've done a good chunk of the books, but not all of them. I'll try to finish up tomorrow if no one else gets to them first. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Did a few more...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I got the books. We should probably move the magazine and newspaper articles over as well. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the "Controversies" section goes, would we solve much of the problem by just naming it "Health Issues" or something similar? It is pretty much all about the health and breakdowns stuff, which isn't so much a "controversy" like, say, abortion is a controversy, it's more an ongoing debate over how bad the problem is, why it occurs and what to do about it. Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...this might be the solution. I think I like it... Ealdgyth? Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It works better than controversies, that's for sure. Let me look over the article again and double check on things. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the controversial subjects belong here, but the 'Health Issues' title might be the way to go. Other possibilities: 'Racing risks' or 'Racing injuries'... I think that the selective breeding and excess loading theories are not really contradictory, but part of the same picture. These fit well as risk factors, although I think really as risks for different issues. Foot issues are bred in, but better bones are too. (I also seriously question the 5% number for underdeveloped hearts...) For example, the 'osteologically delicate' sentence is not well supported by the literature. Racehorse cannon bones are thicker than in any other breed. Strictly speaking, horse bones are overbuilt. While it is well established that overtraining leads to fatigue and accumulated microtrauma of all connective tissue structures (which includes bone), and rapid advancement of young horses doesn't allow for full bone (or tendon/ligament) development, it is also well known that careful training and adequate rest between races allows for very strong bones. No horse in the wild runs as fast as a racehorse. I think it is safe to say that racehorses have been bred to test the limits of nature in their abilities, and that they also test the limits of their own structures, as magnificent as they are. I will fool around in my sandbox with some possible restructuring and some other references, and see what everyone thinks. I'll try to have something to look at tomorrow morning so that we don't throw a wrench into all the great work that's been happening here. And, again, it's only my two cents. Nothing written in stone.--Getwood (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have played around with the 'Health Issues' section in my sandbox: Health issues sandbox. I left the controversy stuff, but tried to rephrase the headings a bit. It's not really that much different. It would be great if all involved could have a look at it and see if it works. Thanks, Getwood (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the rephrasing you've done. Less NPOV and more informative. I'd vote to include as written. Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it too, but I made a few small tweaks also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mean to break the flow of your work, but is this a good time for me to pass the article? I prefer to have a semi-stable version to pass (i.e. one that isn't waiting for the group to agree on). Thanks, VanTucky 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll be putting in a new Health issues section, which you can see Health issues sandbox here but otherwise it's pretty stable. Sorry to be wishywashy, but this is definitely a joint effort! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience VanTucky. The changes here aren't meant to be a major re-write, but an effort to address some of the issues that existed with a controversy section. Most of the changes I made were cosmetic, with a few minor modifications. For the most part, it's looking like all contributors are pretty much on the same page, with some non-controversial positive edits by Ealdgyth (which I have read and agree with). Montanabw has been the other main contributor. I vote that we see what she thinks and if Dana boomer likes the edits. My guess is that we're very close to a stable version that can be installed very soon.--Getwood (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with Getwood's sandbox edits. They are a definite improvement, but do not dramatically change what's there. I say stick them in and go for it! VT, the article is basically pretty stable and there are, as far as I can tell, no significant disagreements amongst the four editors working on it here, we're just one big happy family that is just fussily nitpicking our own work! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've passed the article as GA class. Thanks very much for your hard work and your patience. Congratulations, and I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Best regards, VanTucky 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, where do we reply? Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is good. Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: No, amount provided seems OK, particularly as "sparkling prose" is kind of a fuzzy concept. Write a lot outside wikipedia: Yes, but I try to keep my profession anonymous on wiki and thus details here would disclose it, but I do write a considerable amount of essentially technical, non-fiction (though considerably creativity is often required - grin) work requiring extensive citation to authority as part of my profession. Unrelated to my day job, I have also published a few articles on horse-related topics in assorted regional horse magazines and in one nationally-distributed periodical. Influences within wiki: Not really, though the Military History WikiProject members raked me over the coals pretty good when I started and helped make me what I am today.

What doesn't fit with my writing style: Sometimes the feedback on articles is a little bit too "term paper 101" in terms of mechanistic insistence on a footnote for every paragraph, (when some paragraphs may need one every sentence and at other times the same source may be used for an entire subsection). The concept that the lead needs to mechanically touch on each article section as opposed to being a catchy summary to draw in the reader is also a bit too "SAT essay" for my tastes. But those are mostly just whines.

Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A note on notes

I know I am late to the party, but it seems that notes do have their place. While I agree that this place is not in the references section, there is a relatively simple way to separate the two. I guess the relevant questions here are a) how important are the notes for this article, and b) can a GA article have a notes section separate from a references section...

Here's a little example:

Thoroughbreds are fast.[1] Thoroughbreds are pretty.a  Actively racing thoroughbreds have high density cannon bones.[2]

Notes

[a] Getwood thinks so

References

  1. ^ a b Lowe, Bruce. Breeding Racehorses Racehorses by the Figure System, (publisher name here) 1977 edition.

My point is not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, especially since this problem seems to already be resolved, and the article is approaching GA status... But, I thought it was at least worth bringing up. Thanks, Getwood (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the two notes that were here were tangential, and belonged more in the articles on the specific horse and on horse color, but thanks for the help with the notes thing. I will say that my recent FA used notes interchangeably, and an article I'm planning on taking to FAC shortly will also use them that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey cool! I didn't know you could do that! (Learn something every day) I suppose if the types of edits that generated the issue of needing tangential notes re-emerge at a later date, that would be a good way to handle it. Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also was unaware you can do that. It’s indeed a good way to handle it.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

References

I've begun to switch over the references from magazines and newspapers to the new format. I've only done a few, because I'm not completely sure if I'm doing them right *grin*. Ealdgyth, could you check out refs 22-26 and see if this is what you were thinking of? I'm trying to copy what you did with the Easy Jet article, but I'm not totally sure I'm getting it :) Please let me know, and I'll finish up the rest of them... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd stick with last name, article title and journal, which is enough to identify the source so you can find it in the bibliography. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I got them all. It would be great if someone else could take a quick run through and make sure, though :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I double checked them, and they looked good. I did a bit of format changing to make the refs not over balance the article. I'll leave a note on VT's page saying I think we're done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)