Talk:Italian Heavy Draft

Upgrade

One thought on the great upgrade you are doing. I'd be really careful about Hendrick's historical claims. The claim that this is the only draft breed developed in Italy may be up for challenge (I don't know this for certain, I just worry about it). For one thing, "Italy" as a nation is one of those things with lots of shifting around borders (note the issues we occasionally have at Lipizzan) so something that developed in, say Northern Italy when it was governed by the Holy Roman Empire might be considered a German breed (in fact, isn't that kind of a side issue at Haflinger?) even though it has an equal claim to be "Italian." And of course, also speaking of the working Haflinger, what IS really a draft breed (I mean, we know it when we see it, but ... again, wouldn't our little Haflinger friends have been "draft" horses at one point??) I'm not taking a position on whether to keep or toss the claim, just raising it -- but I tend to view some of Hendrick's claims as being too much drawn straight from breed association propaganda and need to be viewed with a careful lens. Definitely your call, though. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the bit about "only draft breed". I hadn't even thought about the fact that the borders of Italy have not always been the same. As for Haflingers, I really don't know what their classification is. They do a little bit of everything, and are quite good at most of it. I guess their specialization is work in mountains, but that includes packing and riding, so... Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Speaking of Hafs, saw one at a show out here last summer, going western. A little lively for a western pleasure horse, but well-behaved and totally adorable! Lady who owned him was totally in love with him as well. I've often said that if there were no Arabs, I'd go into Morgans, but these Hafs have a similar attitude and energy to foundation Morgans, so now I have yet another alternative. (Well, and I kind of like Paso Finos, too...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We Finns just chug them into the Universal horse category alongside with Fjord horses :) But that won't make it easier for you will it? Pitke (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Darn, no. In the USA, if there is a "generic" horse, it's the excessively ubiquitous American Quarter Horse.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment that might be useful to the GA review

Probably in the "Uses" paragraph, it would be nice to have something about the typical Mortadella of horse meat that is the Roman tradition?--Brunswick Dude (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this is specific to the Italian Heavy Draft, it's just generally made out of horse meat, and the breed was developed long after the Romans disappeared. So, IMO, it would be off topic for this article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When I say "Roman", I mean Rome as of the city of today, without excluding medioeval Rome, not antiquity. In Rome the meat horse made of Mortadella is a delicacy even today and there are sources for that. You ought to search a little and you'll find. If you need my help I can direct you to some sources. Please drop a line in my talk page. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what Dana is saying is that a lot of different breeds are used for horsemeat in Italy and Rome, not just this one. So absent some sort of source that says something definitive "the Mortadella only comes from the meat of the Italian Heavy Draft ..." we can't really use it here. Does that make sense? Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does actually. Thanks and sorry about the confusion. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about horses, so this should be fun... Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Prose / content / sources

• "The Italian Heavy Draft, or Rapid Heavy Draft, is an Italian draft horse". OK, spot the obvious horse-article-noob-reader question, but is it called the Italian Heavy Draft because it is only found in Italy, or because was it first developed in Italy (but is now used more widely), or something else? Reading through deeper into the article, I get the impression it's because it was first bred in Italy, but it's not clear from the off. I've tried (below) a new version of the lead to answer some of my points, incidentally.

• Inserted your proposed version of the lead, with a few tweaks to removing overuse of "breed". Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• You tell us in the lead and infobox that it's also known as the Rapid Heavy Draft, but don't come back to this in the article itself. Where / why?

• I'm assuming this name developed from their speed, which is rather unusual for a heavy draft horse. However, no source that I've found that actually says this. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Any possible synonyms for "developed" or "breeding", both of which are used quite a few times in the lead? Same thing with "breed" in the "history" section.

• Removed quite a few of these, should I do more? Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "the Haflinger, developed in the same region": which region?

• Done. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "breed standards": what are they, and who sets them?

• Breed standards are conformation, color, etc. standards set by the breed registry. I think I have clarified this in the proper location. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Who brands them (i.e. which organisation)? Do we know why that particular symbol?

• I think it's just the owner/farmer that brands them, probably at a communal meeting/inspection. The registry declares which horses get to have the brand, though. I didn't find anything describing why that particular symbol is used. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• This may be a horsey way of speaking of which I know nothing, but I get the impression that IHD is used in different ways in different parts of the article, although my tired brain is struggling to explain the grammatical point I'm trying to make. E.g. "The Italian Heavy Draft generally stands between..." feels different from "The Italian Heavy Draft was begun in 1860"; or perhaps the latter sentence can be reworded, as all three sections begin with the same words (as does the lead).

• I've reworded the first sentence of the history section to vary things a bit. Hopefully it helped. The term "Italian Heavy Draft" should be used the same way throughout the article - to refer to the breed of horse. However, my prose is not always "brilliant", so what I want to say and what is actually in the article are sometimes two different things :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Two dab links in the history section: Brabant and Boulonnais

• Done. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite their early popularity as a strong but fast draft horse, increasing mechanization [etc]" - I don't think the "their" of the first phrase fits up with the subject of the main part of the sentence. "Dangling modifier" I think I heard someone say at FAC once...

• I think I fixed this. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Minor point, but in the lead you have a comma after 1970s, but not in the main text. In fact sometimes you have a comma ("In 1926," "In 2005,") but not always ("In the 1970s" "In 1976").

• All standardized, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The Italian Heavy Draft was originally bred to be a versatile breed " - any chance of an alternative word choice to avoid the repetition?

• Fixed, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "It is still used for farming in a few areas where mechanization is not practical and the mares are also still used for the production of mules, although its main breeding purpose today is the production of horse meat" - the subject of the sentence goes from "it [=breed]" to "mares" back to "it" again; by the time we're back to "it", it's a little confusing.

• This was split into two sentences. Better? Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Italy is one of the top consumers of horse meat" - in Europe? In the world? I suspect the latter is implied, but I'm not certain.

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 1: is "p entry 108" right?

• This is an annoying quirk of the cite book template. The Bongianni book doesn't have pages (none are listed), it has "entries" (generally two entries per page, but this varies). So, I can't put a specific page number, but as far as I know, I also can't get it to not add the "p." to the resulting reference. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sources look appropriate and reliable; can't access the books (well, I can get to part of one on Google Books, but not the relevant part) but they exist, which is a start! No signs of original research or inappropriate copying from references, to the extent that it's possible to judge such things from limited access to the sources.

Other (non-)issues

• No broken external links
• One image, on Commons with prima facie valid licensing
• Written from a NPOV
• Article is stable
• Article is sufficiently broad in coverage

So, where does that leave us? I think the answer is that if you can either address the issues raised above, or patiently explain to me why I'm missing the point (as the case may be) then it's a GA. On hold for the traditional period, therefore.

I've tried a rewrite of the lead to try and address my own points; feel free to accept, reject or alter:

The Italian Heavy Draft, or Rapid Heavy Draft, is an draft horse from Italy, where it was first bred in 1860. Generally chestnut in color, the breed is known for its combination of strength and speed. It was developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from a mix of native Italian stock and imported breeds, mainly draft horses. Its versatility has led to its use in both agricultural and military capacities, as well as for the production of mules. In 1926, a stud book was formed for the breed, and population numbers continued to rise until the advent of World War II. Breeding programs suffered during the war, and despite care afterward, population numbers continued to dwindle as increasing mechanization decreased the need for draft horses. In the 1970s, selective breeding goals were changed to produce a horse suitable for meat production, which remains the primary use of the breed.

Bencherlite^Talk 22:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bencherlite, and thanks for the review. I was going to get started on these last night, but then Malleus and Montana were editing and I didn't want to ec with them. I'll work through these tonight when I get off work, but wanted to let you know that I have seen the comments. Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've been in court all day, I'm travelling this evening, then I'm in court all day tomorrow and travelling all evening again - then it's the weekend, when {{u|WifeofBencherlite]} and SonofBencherlite get first call on me... so don't expect much from me in reply very quickly. Bencherlite^Talk 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I have replied to all of your points above. No problem if you don't get back to this until next week - I completely understand the real life "excuse"! Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your clarifications and Malleus's prose tweaks combined have cleared everything up. I've fixed your {{cite book}} problem (the answer is to add "|nopp=yes" to the parameters) and added one more category. All is well, so GA pass it is. Bencherlite^Talk 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I had little to do with this particular article, but Dana and I have paired on a number of WPEQ breed articles. I can reassure you that she accesses Bongianni, Hendricks, and Edwards for us on a regular basis because I don't have them. From her other work with sources I do have access to I can reassure you that she does a good job of neither straying too far from the source material nor does she plagiarize! We had to deal with tons of OR while cleaning up multiple other articles for the horse breeds task force, so no worries there, either! Looks like all the other stuff is structural, so I'll let Dana address those issues. But just wanting to offer some support here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no doubts at all in my mind that Db is a responsible editor who knows the difference between reliance on and copying from sources, and who knows where the gap is between sources and OR. I was just leaving a marker for anyone who reads the review in future, so that they could see the extent to which I had been able to check the sources for myself. Bencherlite^Talk 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Revisions

I'm moving some hidden text to talk, as it looks like a full discussion is in order amongst the lead editor(s) of the article (and this is not me), particularly because any revisions to a current GA need to be made carefully so that we do not accidentally downgrade the article by problems with sourcing of new material. The GA criteria is quite strict on such matters. Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

From Justlettersandnumbers: I really don't think this is quite accurate; I think the selection for the TPR began in about 1911 when some farmers requested that the Deposito Stalloni purchase a/some Breton stallion(s), which it did (Breton can still be crossed into the breed, according to the standard, I think). Obviously they had some kind of heavy horse before, but I don't think it was "rapid". I'll try to dig into this a bit. The list of contents of the archive of the Comune of Ferrara is online, but unfortunately most of the documents are undated.

Thanks, Montana, I should probably have done that myself. So, the source: the ANACAITPR itself, which I submit is far more likely to be reliable than many of our textbooks, which tend to be written by people who have probably never even seen a TPR. The date 1860 which you see in about 10000 internet pages on this breed as the beginning of its history is (a) simply the date of unification of Italy, (b) apparently wrong, as we've just celebrated the 150th anniversary, on 17 March 2011 and (c) not related in any case to the rapid heavy draft. I have done my level best to find out the date of foundation of the Deposito Cavalli Stalloni of Ferrara (some of these definitely date to Austro-Hungarian times, the one at Mantova was founded early in the C18), but without success so far; I've asked a friend interested in military history to see if he can find it. It strikes me as extremely unlikely (though of course not inconceivable) that either the Austrians or the Italians would have set up something like that right at the time of transition. I'm happy to assist with translating and or interpreting the page I've linked above, which I believe constitutes an authoritative source which could be used to make substantial improvements and additions to this article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian name

Suggest adding something along the lines of this sentence after the first: 'The full Italian name of the breed is Cavallo Agricolo Italiano de Tiro Pesante Rapido, "Italian Rapid Heavy Draft Farm Horse", but the abbreviation TPR (Italian pronunciation: [tipi'erre])) is normal in colloquial speech and frequent in informal written contexts'.

See e.g. youtube for informal confirmation of informal use.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In English, all sources call it what it is here, but I see no problem with adding the Italian form and a literal translation. I don't really know if there are any of these in English-speaking countries, so TPR in normal colloquial speech should be qualifies that we are talking about Italy. Make the tweak, if I think it will be a problem based on the English sources (which can at least be viewed as reliable for and common English use), I can edit your edit and we can get to an agreement. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You've put a cn tag, but which bit do you want it for? The official Italian name is in the breed standard, the colloquial one is like Paris, everybody knows it. I am not going to cite Google in an article, but please look at the hits for these two searches and then decide whether to remove the tag:

• cavallo "TPR"
• cavallo "Cavallo Agricolo Italiano da Tiro Pesante Rapido"

The problem with the English sources is of course that they are all copied from each other, and none of them is authoritative. What-ho! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked your sentence a bit, removing some of the detail, since it's really not necessary to say it's used in informal verbal and written communication, rather than just saying "informally". I don't think a ref is needed for the revised version, because it is often referred to as such in the literature, so I have removed the CN tag. The convention on WP is generally to go with the most common name in English sources. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The point is that it is ALWAYS called a TPR in conversation because the full name is just too damned long, but no-one is going to say 'always' in the article because they'll be shot down. And yes, we call it a Tee-pee-ah when talking about it in English, too. IMO the detail I included was just what was needed, relevant but not verbose.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an ongoing question of when and how to acknowledge the official foreign language name of a foreign breed and when to use the common English translations. As a rule, this is English wiki, so we use English rules WP:V is our guide here, and there has been long conversations across multiple articles that have resulted in things like the Germany article NOT being titled "Deutschland." If you have an English source for "TPR" it would be good to include it, because others might ask later. I agree that we don't need a source in the lead, necessarily, but if naming is an issue, we may need to explain. I don't know. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)