Talk:Suffolk Punch/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be preforming the review of this article to see if it meets to good article criteria. This process may take up to seven days. During my review, I may make edits to the article to fix minor issues. If you have any questions about the review process, or edits that I make, please feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. Million_Moments (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Is there any reason why the alternative/historical names for the breed are a note, instead of just included in brackets in the lead with the relevant reference? Million_Moments (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It was there mainly because that's where it got dropped during the editing. I've moved it to the lead. Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

I am very happy with this article in general, it's very well written and broad in it's coverage. Just a couple of minor things. I have added one {{fact}} tag where I felt a reference was really needed to make it clear where the information was coming from.

I also think there should be some expansion of the comments about how the breed went through a genetic bottleneck. It is stated that this occurred three times, and I think it needs to be explained how it happened three times. My assumption is a lack of breeding, but bottlenecks can be caused by other things such a disease wiping out large sections of the population.

This article will be watched for seven days. If after that time no changes have been made it maybe failed without notice. Please leave me a message here when you think the requests above have been completed. Good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of the fact tag. The reference for this was at the end of the next sentence, but I've moved things around so that the ref is directly after the sentence that you (correctly) pointed out to be more controversial.

So far, in everything I've read, there has been no explanation for the genetic bottlenecks that occured. I assume, as you did, that it was the result of a lack of breeding, but I can't put this in without refs, as it would be OR. However, I will spend some time looking later today to see if I can find some more information on this, and let you know what I find. Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've spent a couple of hours going through my books and a bunch of online research, and I haven't been able to find anything that gives details on the genetic bottlenecks. I would bet my next paycheck that they were the result of too few horses with too few breeders, resulting in dying numbers, but I don't know this for sure and I don't have sources for it. Do you have any suggestions? Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try to pop into my University library tomorrow and have a quick look through. If nothing comes up we'll leave it as a future improvement that could be made to the article. Million_Moments (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also unable to find any further information in any of the many horse books I checked today. However I will comment that in the majority of the books the horse was simply refered to as a Suffolk and not as a Suffolk Punch, some books mentioned it's other name of a suffolk punch but some did not. I know the horses as suffolk punch but are they more commonly known as just Suffolks? Should the article, and it's title, reflect this? Million_Moments (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. My books go back and forth as well, but the main thing is that Suffolk is an English county, so our other option would be Suffolk (horse) or Suffolk horse. I figure that the main title being Suffolk Punch, which is the main thing I've known them as, and having the two other commonly known names in the first line, kind of covers all our bases. My suggestion would maybe be to tweak the Suffolk (disambiguation) page to say that the horse is also known as just the Suffolk horse, and then also to maybe create a redirect from Suffolk horse. Let me know your thoughts...hope this whole thing makes some sort of sense. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

Well ok, I'm happy with your argument. And I'm also happy to pass this article! Future improvements would be to just expand where you can, espicially if you can find reasons for the genetic bottleneck. If it is felt this review has been in error, it can be brought to WP:GAR. Thank you, and keep up the good work! Million_Moments (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review! Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)