| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take it to FLC and would like comments on anything that needs to be improved. Specific questions: Is it long enough for a FL? Is there anything that I'm missing in the lead section? Are the two missing pictures going to be a problem? Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I thought it was interesting, but am not sure it provides enough information on the state horses, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I know in the past FLs were supposed to have at least 10 items, so this is fine in that respect. I also assume that it is complete (no states are missing). I still worry that the article does not meet WP:WIAFL citerion 3a, Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. as it does not really provide annotations. I think adding a Notes or Comments column with a brief comment on each would help satisfy this concern. The notes could briefly mention the connection between the horse and state (why this horse was chosen for this state). A few of these are in the lead but I think they should be given for each.
- For many of the breeds, there is not an explicit source saying "this is why xyz breed was chosen". I also think in many cases (Missouri Fox Trotter, Tennessee Walking Horse, Florida Cracker, etc), it's rather obvious, and could get a little repetitive to keep repeating this. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The notes could also explain more on the proposed breeds (there is already a brief explanation in the Arizona entry)
- I also do not like to see things that are only in the lead - according to WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article, but here the whole third paragraph is only in the lead. Again, if there is a notes or comments section, this information could be there too.
- I think the two missing pictures are not a problem (assume some day they will be found and added)
- The article seems to be inconsistent on its capitalization of "horse" and "mustang" as part of a breed name. My guess is the official names are inconsistent, but it looks odd here to have horse capitalized most of the time, but not for Morgan horse or Nokota horse (ditto for Mustang / mustang)
- I think I've standardized this a bit better. The only one I've left as a lowercase "horse" in a breed name is Banker horse, as the breed name isn't "Banker Horse" (like the Quarter horse is, for example), but most people don't refer to them just as "Bankers", although some do. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could the proposed states be indicated in the map too (with a different color)?
- SOurces seem reliable and refs are formatted properly
- Prose seems fine - no real other concerns beyond hat I mentioned above.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've replied to a couple of things above, as well as leaving a message on your talk page about the differences between U.S. state dog breeds (off of which this is based) and what you are requesting above. Thank you for the review. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. Nowadays I mostly do peer reviewes and FAC reviews so it is entirely possible I am used to different standards / expectations. My PR comments are generally suggestions (unless something really violates the MOS or a policy or guidleline). I can see that this follows the state dog article model pretty closely. If this will pass FLC in its current state, that is fine. I just made suggestions that I thought would make it a better article - why not show where the two proposed states are on the map (in a different color)? As for the notes, if the rationale is not known, why not give two sentences that help the reader understand the history of the breed in this state? So for the Florida Cracker Horse, something like "The Florida Cracker, a gaited breed known for its agility and speed, developed from horses brought to Florida by the Spanish in the early 1500s and was used by Florida cowboys (or "crackers") until the 1930s, when its population declined precipitously. Though saved from extinction, there is still concern about the breed's low numbers." Your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
PS Pennsylvania has two horses on its official state flag - see File:Flag of Pennsylvania.svg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
PPS EL Checker shows one dead EL and one missing an access date. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional comments! I've added quite a bit of description to the article, as well as a separate section on state symbols. I've also fixed the dead link, but I can't seem to find the one missing an access date. Dana boomer (talk)
Comments by Another Believer: I am offering comments without having looked at Ruhrfisch's notes, so pardon if some of this is redundant. I am biased, as I promoted the list to FL status, but I think List of Oregon state symbols provides much more information to readers than this list. I would include why the state horses were chosen--provide details about the relationship between the horse breed and the state, how it was chosen, etc. Also, instead of linking to just the state (Oregon), I would recommend linking to "List of Oregon state symbols"). I assume the cells with missing images will have "—" or another dash form instead? I would also consider centering the Year and Ref columns. Just my two cents. Best of luck! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, don't forget alt text for images! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've added some details on the links between the states and the breeds, as this was also suggested by Ruhrfisch. However, I'm wondering if linking to the state symbols articles would be rather easter-eggy. Also, as far as I can tell, alt text is not a requirement for FL status at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Better. I added a few line breaks to the Ref. column. Just because something may not be required doesn't mean it still isn't in the article's best interest... :p --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've added some details on the links between the states and the breeds, as this was also suggested by Ruhrfisch. However, I'm wondering if linking to the state symbols articles would be rather easter-eggy. Also, as far as I can tell, alt text is not a requirement for FL status at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)