Talk:Charolais horse

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charolais horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article. It might take me a few days to complete. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are some concerns listed below about possibly unclear prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   To be totally honest, I didn't read any of your references, even though I can read French pretty well and some of the sources are available online from the French article. But right now I'm having some Internet problems and can only access https sites. But I trust you that you have accurately cited your sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It does follow the major aspects, but I did find the flow of ideas to be a bit jumpy at times.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The one image used is from Wikipedia Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some questions: * This may be a very elementary assumption in breeding (and perhaps biology in general) but do you say that a species is extinct even if they were fused into another species? Maybe you do, but 1958 seems so recent. Could there not be some Selle Français that are genetically almost identical to the Charolais of 1958, but just their species name has changed? Maybe there is no other term to use, but "extinct" kind of sounds like "died out". I wonder whether it would be an idea to make that distinction clearer.

• This is breed, not a species. We use the term "extinct" breed as a term of art, not in precisely the sense of a species. The horse breeds could not possibly be genetically the same because they have added outside blood, though they may remain somewhat related. Does that explain things better? --MTBW

• Yes, it does. Thank you. --Moisejp

• "Like other French warmbloods, it was the result of crossing local agricultural horses with the Thoroughbred, and was known by the name of the region without ever having a specific studbook." This sounds to me like "even though they didn't have a studbook, they were known by the name of the region" but I suspect that's not what you meant. (If it is what you meant, could you explain the relationships of the different concepts more clearly?)
• "The Charolais breed was small, and closest in type to the Morvan horse, another now-extinct French type." The first "type" works OK for me, but the second one seems a bit unclear—maybe because in neither case is it specified explicitly "type of what?"
• "They were called small and inelegant" → "They were generally considered (to be) small and inelegant"?

• I've played with the above three sentences - please see what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• "They were strong, and considered robust and hardy" Maybe this part would go better with "known for their pulling power" (both bits talk about the horse's strength, and about perceptions of the horse, as opposed to fact). And maybe the "small" of "small and inelegant" would go better with "The breed had a short head with small ears and a short, strong neck attached low on the shoulder. The body was short and rounded, with a broad croup and strong legs" (all talking about body shape). Possibly "called small" is meant to show the public's perception of their smallness being a negative trait, but it's not clear in what respect "small" would have been considered bad.
• "They were strong, and considered robust and hardy, the latter especially before the breeding changes of the 19th century." It feels a bit awkward to me to have "the latter" referring to an adjective (but if it sounds perfectly fine to you, I won't object). Also, so many words about their strength: pulling power, strong, robust, hardy, endurance. I wonder whether the distinction is clear enough between "robust" and "hardy", and if not, why specify that only their hardiness was especially true before the 19th century. Also, is the distinction clear enough between "were" and "[were] considered" to warrant using both independently in the same sentence?

• I think it's better now. I hope my tweak is OK, but if not feel fee to tweak some more. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "The Charolais was appreciated for its gaits and endurance." Again, I wonder to the average reader how much overlap there is between endurance, strength, hardiness, and pulling power. Maybe some of these could be bundled together. Possibly "gaits and endurance" are meant to be traits favourable for cavalry, but if so it may not be clear for the average reader whether this is so, and whether "endurance" was more important for cavalry than, say, robustness and hardiness.

• Each are different; a horse can have great endurance, like the Arabian horse but be useless for pulling a plow. Ditto strength, in horses it's all about a concept we call "form to function" -- kind of like how a Great Dane, a Welch Corgi, and a Husky might each be "strong" dogs, but in different ways. --MTBW

• I've played around with this section a bit - did I make it better or worse? As Montanabw says, each of these things means something different - pulling power is different from endurance is different from hardiness. According to my dictionary, robust means strong and healthy, while hardy means capable of enduring fatigue, hardship, exposure, etc. - related things, but different. Different breeds can be robust but not hardy, or hardy but not robust. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• All right, I guess I can't argue with the idea that each concept is slightly different. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "and in 1933 was called a perfect war horse, comparable to those bred in Ireland at the time." The wording a little bit sounds like the reader already takes it for granted that the horses bred in Ireland at the time were great war horses. Well, I guess it depends on how you read it. If you're happy with this sentence, I won't insist.
  

• I've removed the Ireland part, as the sentence works without it, and I'm honestly not completely sure what the source author was referring to with the part about Irish horses. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll get to the History section tomorrow or soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, continuing along... By the way, I wanted to say, if you feel any of these suggestions go beyond what should be required for GA, do say so. I'm just making some suggestions for what I think could improve the article, but few of these suggestions are meant to be set in stone. History:

• "Until 1958, the Charolais and other demi-sang breeds, such as the Angevin, the Charentais, the Cheval Limousin and the Vendéen, were generally known by the name of the region in which they existed." / "However, before the mid-19th century in France, horses were not separated by breed, but instead by geography, and so there were no physical characteristics that distinguished the Charolais from other demi-sang breeds." Aren't these two sentences saying about the same thing, except one is saying the mid-19th and one is saying the mid-20th century? I found that confusing.

• I've tweaked this, it was supposed to say that types created before the mid-19th century were not separated by breed... Better? Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure how this fixes the issue. Please see my comment at the bottom of the page. Moisejp (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

* "...and many missed the old-style Charolais, which had disappeared due to a lack of demand and use." But they hadn't completely disappeared, right? It might be an idea to make that point clearer.

• Yes, they are gone now, actually. The concept of a purebred animal is quite important to horse breeders, and once all the purebreds are gone, the breed is "dead." --MTBW

• The context here is not now, but the mid-19th century. But I guess it is talking about old-style Charolais (presumably pre-1850) being missed as opposed to new-style Charolais (1850–1958), so I am crossing out my comment.--Moisejp

• I like what you did here. It's clearer now, I think.

• Similarly: "Multi-purpose breeds like the Charolais and the Morvan were slowly replaced by draft horses." But not completely replaced.

• Pretty much yes, actually. None known to exist today. --MTBW

• But in this context, it's talking about 19th century France, and then there's mention of Charolais still being around in 1919, and until 1958. In the mid-19th century they were being replaced to a degree but they weren't all replaced. I think "were slowly replaced" may suggest "were completely replaced". And if there's ambiguity, I would argue it's better to find a different phrase that's less ambiguous. --Moisejp

• You may be correct; but I'll let Dana make that call as she did the research. --MTBW

• Tweaked. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...due to the clay-limestone soils that favored the development of the equine skeletal structure." Just to confirm, that means the minerals in the soil got in the grass the horses ate, which helped their bones?

• Yes, limestone soils are desired worldwide by horse breeders because it is believed that grass grown there has a higher calcium content and builds stronger bones. (It's one reason Kentucky is considered prime horse-breeding territory in the USA). There is something to this, actually. --MTBW

• Not sure if you're looking for additional information in the article on this, or just confirming for yourself? I think it might be getting a bit off-topic to start discussing the specific effects of various soils on skeletal development, but could probably be convinced otherwise if you have a strong argument for including the information... Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't really looking for additional info. I was just suggesting it might be an idea to spell out, if possible, the idea that it was the horses' diet that was affected here by the minerals. But it's probably relatively obvious, I guess. If you feel comfortable with it as it is, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed the French article has links to a number of the online articles (on Google Books) that you use as references. I didn't use to, but lately when I've been using Google Books as a reference, I've been providing links in the References section. Just an idea, but if you don't want to, no worries.
• Dana, I know that you translated a lot of this, which may possibly have taken your attention away from the flow of the English. But overall I felt this article was a little bit meandering. As I was reading it, I had no clear sense of what the structure or flow was supposed to be. Both the Characteristics and History sections felt a bit jumpy to me, jumping from one idea to the next, and sometimes seeming to go back and repeat the same or similar ideas. Maybe also because I'm not a horse enthusiast I had to work harder to catch all of the ideas. The writing felt quite dense to me. If I were writing it, maybe I would try to keep it simpler and look for any extraneous details that could possibly be removed. Just one example: "It was reported at the time that the favorite horse of King Albert I of Belgium was a Charolais named Titanic." It doesn't really seem to add anything to the idea of the paragraph, or really to my understanding of Charolais overall. But again, these are just suggestions, and you are free to ignore them if you want. Moisejp (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, if you want to leave in the sentence about King Albert I, I don't mind. I don't have that strong an opinion about it. Moisejp (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Moisejp! RL has been a little busy lately, but I should have a chance to get to your comments over the next couple of days. Dana boomer (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

While Dana is busy, I have added some comments to your questions above. I will let Dana address artile editing needs, but I might be able to clarify things a bit in the meantime, MTBW Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, MTBW! Moisejp (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for my slow response on this - RL has been beyond busy. I've begun replying above...more shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dana, don't worry, take your time. I've been really busy, too, and likely won't have much time for Wikipedia in the next number of days. Moisejp (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, it looks better now. The one issue I still have is that in the History section, first you mention: "Until 1958, the Charolais and other demi-sang breeds, such as the Angevin, the Charentais, the Cheval Limousin and the Vendéen, were generally known by the name of the region in which they existed, and did not have individual breed studbooks." Then later "However, the Charolais and other types developed before the mid-19th century in France were not separated by breed, but instead by geography". This is confusing because first this "classification by geography" is mentioned in context of 1958, then in context of the mid-19th century (100 years earlier). Plus, the wording "were not separated by breed, but instead by geography" kind of sounds like you're introducing the concept for the first time, when in fact the concept has already been introduced. So the reader has double reason to be confused: "Did what I read before not say what I thought it did?" Then later, you go back to 1958 to talk about the creation of the national breed. This reorganizing of French breeding, one can deduce, is the cause of the 1958 changes mentioned earlier, but with all the jumping around between time periods, the timeline and cause-and-effect might not be as clear as would be ideal. Well, for me, the two 1958 mentions is not as big issue as the "classification by geography" confusion I mentioned above. It's just an idea, but if there were a way to put the two 1958 points together, it might be a smidgen clearer, but that'd possibly require major reorganization. So no biggie if you don't do that. Moisejp (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at wordsmithing that section, as I didn't write the material or translate it, fresh eyes might work for the cleanup. Dana, just revert me if I screwed it up. However, this stuff IS complex, as, with a few exceptions, "breeds" with official written studbooks (other than stud farm records) as we know them today really only came into being in the late 18th century or so. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw, thanks for your edits! I'll try to have a good look at them in the next day or so. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Montana, thanks for your edits - they look good and are almost exactly what I was planning to do with the section. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks great! Throughout the editing process, the prose has gotten a lot clearer, and I am happy to pass the article for GA. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Moisejp! It's been a pleasure working with you :) Dana boomer (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)