Talk:New Forest pony/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "... and ponies of all heights should be strong, workmanlike, and of a good riding type." Who says they should?

The Breed Society (it's in the breed standards). Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Done - clarified. Pesky (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics

• "The upper height limit for a New Forest pony is 14.21⁄4 hands ...". I think we need to say who sets that height limit. Genetics or some breed standards body?

Breed society, again (the New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society). Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• "New Forest Ponies are most commonly bay, chestnut or grey, but may be any coat colour except piebald, skewbald or blue-eyed cream." Again, who says so? Genetics or a standards body? I think this section in general needs to differentiate between the two.

NFPB&CS Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• "White markings on the head and legs are permitted ...". Again, permitted by the breed standards body presumably, not by God. What happens to ponies that fail to meet this standard?

They're not permitted to be registered as pure-bred, and their offspring therefore can't be registered pure-bred either as it's a closed stud book. They're entered in what's known as the "X-register". Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Clarified; extra ref. Pesky (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

History

• "... the New Forest pony has ancient shared ancestry with two endangered Spanish celtic-type pony breeds". Shouldn't that be "Celtic-type"?

Very possibly! I'm not 100% sure on that one, though. I won't argue (and I don't suppose anyone else will, either) if it's capitalised. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• "... shipped over 2000 horses across the English Channel ...". I'm not terribly happy about that Easter egg; could we not just make the link from "shipped" rather than the whole clause?

Yup, sure. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually reading it again I'm not certain what it means. Did he ship more than 2000 horses from France, or did he ship 2000 horses over from France? Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

More than 2000 horses, shipped across from France, but probably originating in France, Flanders, Normandy and other nearby areas. Any clearer, lol? Pesky (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)  Done - clarified. Pesky (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The earliest written record of horses in the New Forest dates back to that time, when rights of common of pasture were granted to its inhabitants". That sentence doesn't quite work; the subject of the initial clause is "written record", therefore the "its" in the second part of the sentence is referring back to that rather than to the New Forest.

Yup, OK, I'll tweak that one, too. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

• "Probably the most notable stallion in the early history of the breed was the Thoroughbred Marske". What was notable about him?

He was the sire of Eclipse (very famous horse, see his article). Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• "There was some demand for the better-looking ponies as riding horses, and also for driven work until the introduction of motor vehicles; and World War II drove up the market value of young animals for horse meat." This still seems very awkward to me. Why "and also", when "and" says exactly the same thing? My biggest concern though is the tacking on of that "and World War II ..." bit, which has no obvious relevance to what precedes it. We start out by talking about demand then suddenly switch to market value, but the two are clearly not the same thing, so why slam them together in one sentence?

Ahh, OK, I thought I'd clarified that one (somewhere); I can double check on it. Basically, though, as demand rises, market values rise, and commoners are prepared to breed more stock. It's not worth while breeding stock which can't be sold, as it costs (feed, etc.) to keep them on. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)  Done - clarified.

• "There was a rise in stock numbers from 1917 to 1920, driven by an increase in market value". Increase in the market value of what? Ponies? Cattle? Both?

I think both; can't remember offhand but the source may not have been totally clear on it, either. That I can check. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

• "As part of ongoing efforts to improve the hardiness of the breed and return it to a more native type in the 20th century ...". That "more native type in the 20th century" looks really odd, doubly so as we're now in the 21st century yet the efforts are ongoing. Should this rather be saying something like "As part of ongoing efforts that began in the 20th century to improve the hardiness of the breed ..."?

The stud book has been closed since the 1930's, so animals of other breeds haven't been introduced since then. What's been happening since is more concentration on picking the best stallions from within the breed. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• "... the skeletal remains of ponies from the Bronze Age suggests that they were similar to the modern Exmoor Pony". Should it really be "Exmoor Pony" rather than "Exmoor pony"? Seems to me that article has the wrong title.

Yup, that makes sense. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Uses

• That quadrille looks fun, but do we have any idea what the copyright status of that YouTube video is? Additionally, as it's not really citing anything, if the copyright is kosher, then it really ought to be an external link.

The channel is owned by the British Riding Clubs, who video various competitions of theirs, including the National Finals of the Riding Clubs Quadrille. It does confirm (through the commentary) that the NFPEC team won; also shows (if the viewer looks for it!) that the pony team are definitely smaller than the others, etc.; i.e. backup confirmation that they compete successfully against larger animals. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. OK, I'll buy that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ponies on the New Forest

• "... but are owned by commoners (local people with common grazing rights), who pay a fee each year for each animal turned out", Why is "commoners" in italics when it hasn't been in the article up until now? Commoners were already mentioned earlier in the article, about halfway through the History section, so the link and explanation ought to be moved to there.

Good point; I'll do that. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Done

• "... the Verderers are a statutory body with ancient roots that shares the management of the forest with the Forestry Commission." There's an apparent confusion of singular and plural there that's slightly jarring: "the Verders are", but "shares the management" (which presumably refers back to the singular "body", but looks like it ought to be referring back to the plural "Verderers"). How about a slight rewrite along the lines of "the Verderers are a statutory body with ancient roots, sharing management of the forest with the Forestry Commission"?

Yup; much better that way. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

• "Although they are predominately New Foresters ...". Although who are predominantly New Foresters?

The ponies on the Forest. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)  Done tweaked.

• "The remaining fillies are each branded with their owner's mark". The preceding sentence says that most colts are removed, so aren't the remaining colts also branded with their owner's mark?

Ooh, it depends a bit. Sometimes owners don't brand the colts if they're intending only to let them stay on the Forest until the following spring. Only animals over a year old have to be branded ... though sometimes we get one in on a drift which hasn't been caught since it was born several years earlier! Some of them (and their mothers) are expert at escaping the round-up ;P

I'll get onto these points probably tomorrow; Real Life is a bit hectic at the moment. Feel free to make any of the suggested changes yourself, of course. Pesky (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of the small things, but I'll leave the rest to you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm lurking, may make some tweaks, but just revert me if I screwed up anything. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Spotted a couple things

I can't be a reviewer for the GA because I did earlier work here, but I did spot a couple things that you might want to look at:

1. I'd expand the lead, especially to add a summary of the history section; the lead does not fully summarize the article as I read WP:MOSINTRO.

   Yes, I shall do that thing. Pesky (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

2. The first paragraph of the history section may be TMI for a breed article, maybe keep the link to the history article, but just start with the history of the New Forest?

   I shall take a look and reconsider ... but you know how much I like the prehistory stuff, lol! I felt a burning compulsion to get into the ancient-DNA and comparative DNA stuff and say something more about the apparent close relationship to the Tarpan, but I managed to resist most of that ;P Pesky (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

3. The statement " The introduction of Arab blood also reduced the ponies' natural hardiness and ability to thrive on the open Forest over winter" is a bit dubious, particularly as just prior, you mention how important a grandson of the Darley Arabian was to the breed. Who was the source and how solid is that claim? (Sounds like typical Arabian-bashing & though OR, I also say this having owned Arabians in Montana, where they were perfectly capable of turning into fuzzy bears and surviving temps down to -40.)

   Ahh, it's not the cold temperatures that constitute the problem, it's the wetness of the Forest in the winter which the more Araby ones find harder to handle. Pesky (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   Adding: you'll find pretty much every source on NF pony history says the same thing, wherever you look. Arabs are very short on water-shedding hairs (particularly on the lower leg), whereas NF ponies grow some pretty significant feather with their winter coat. The ponies with less feather are much more prone to mud fever. Araby coats can grow good and fluffy and withstand very low temperatures, but they're quite water-permeable compared to the British natives (which grow cat-hairs in their winter coats). The ponies with fewer cat-hairs are much more prone to rain scald. And the feet ... Araby (desert) feet don't respond well to being submerged in water for long periods of time, lol! Personally, I like Arabs, but the Araby types get dreadfully "poor" on the open Forest in winter. Pesky (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'll give a nod to the wetness issue, that makes sense, and the hair follicle stuff makes sense too, but best to explain that bit. (Montana is colder than the UK , but dry, even with a foot of snow on the ground, the static electricity in the air is enough to make people's hair stand on end whenever they come inside and pull off the hooded parka! )

4. A question I've had for a long time is how it is possible to track which stallion breeds which mares, if they fight for dominance with each other as do Mustangs out here in the west, doesn't this make the pedigree of the foals kind of hard to sort out? This is different from most purebred breeding programs...???

   We turn out pretty few stallions (I think only 10 are going out this year), and they're placed in different areas from each other. Mares tend to stick to a particular "haunt", and get covered by the stallion who's been turned out in that area. Obviously there are occasional queries on paternity, but one can very often see with the naked eye which stallion was the sire (colour, markings, positioning of hair whorls, etc.), and in really dubious cases we DNA test if the resulting foal is likely to be used for breeding. Obviously more important for colts than for fillies to be DNA tested. Still, a few do get through ... Pesky (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

5. "Depastured" is a weird word -- to me it means the same as "un-" or to be removed, yet here you use it to mean they go TO the New Forest. Not sure if we have British English here or if we have jargon, but it jumped out at me.

   It's the standard word around here! Pesky (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   It's a word I was unfamiliar with too, but it's in the dictionary – I checked. Malleus Fatuorum 11:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

All I can think of for now. It's a wonderful article and your improvements have been significant!!! Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (both) for your comments and help here. Pesky (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I've probably covered all of that; please let me know if I've missed something, or if you feel the lede still needs to be expanded (more). Pesky (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just one more thing: should "agister" be capitalised or not? It is in the body of the article but not in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's important either way (different places do different things; it's their formal job title as well as being a descriptive word for anyone who takes payment for caring for stock). I'll standardise it as capitalised, I think, as we're talking about the New Forest Agisters, as opposed to Any Old agisters ;P Pesky (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

Final question

History

• "White markings on the head and legs are permitted unless they occur behind the head and above a line parallel to the ground from the point of the hock in the hind leg to the top of the metacarpal bone ...". That doesn't seem to make sense: "White markings on the head ... are permitted unless they occur behind the head"? If they're behind the head then surely they're not on the head? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's on the head and legs, unless they're behind the head and too far up the legs. Or anywhere else on the body (even a white spot on pink skin, the size of a 1p piece, on the underside of the belly, is enough to get them X-registered instead of in the main section!) I've done a minor rewording of that little bit. Pesky (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

OK, we can close this now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.