Talk:Spotted Saddle Horse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

okay - you know the drill......Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The two have similar registration requirements, although they vary slightly. - err, yes. The two clauses say the same thing - either specify in second segment or drop the statement.

Expanded this a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

although solid-colored foals from registered parents are tracked for identification purposes. - bit too vague I think

Expanded this a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:I have no idea in para 1 of history section when this has taken place over.

Added a couple of general time frames. Basically, gaited spotted horses have been bred for quite a while, but it's just in the past 30-40 years that people have thought "hey, lets create and promote a breed registry for horses with flashy gaits and even flashier coloring". The studbooks are still open/semi-open, so the breed is really still in development. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The NSSHA is adamant about disallowing cruel and inhumane training and showing practices - err, if these practices are illegal, aren't they disallowed everywhere? I think this needs elaboration

Yes, it's illegal, but it's also profitable if a trainer doesn't get caught. Big gaits = big money, although more so in the Tennessee Walking Horse world, where most of the violations are seen. The NSSHA goes above and beyond the Horse Protection Act of 1970 by having rules against other performance devices that can be used to cover up violations of the HPA - I've expanded on this a bit more in the article. You see a similar split of associations (some focused on big gaits, some on humane training/performance practices) in the TWH world. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

any idea of numbers registered with each body? Is one larger than the other? Are relations cordial or otherwise?

I haven't found anything on numbers. The main split, as I said above, is based on training/performance practices. The two associations don't seem to do any joint projects, release joint press releases, or anything else, so I'm assuming relations aren't cordial. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cas, thank you for the review! RL just got insane for me (it's spring!!! took it's sweet time getting here, then arrived with a bang...), so it may take me a couple of days to get to this. Just wanted to let you know that I'd seen it! Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've responded to everything above. Let me know if there are further issues. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - I worry that it's a little slim, and some numbers would be good, but there appears to be very little on a google books or scholar search that is not already covered, so I guess what we have is all that we can glean....otherwise ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas! It is a little on the slim side, but this is one of the newer American breeds/breed registries, and very little research has been done to examine its history or genetics. I'm trying to focus on some of the more substantial breed articles this year, but sometimes it's fun to pop out one of these little ones without all of the thick mitochondrial DNA studies to wade through :) Dana boomer (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)