Wikipedia:Peer review/American Cream Draft/archive1
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this has been a GA for a while, and I'm playing with the idea of taking it to FAC. An overall eye for horsey jargon would be appreciated, as well as a feeling for comprehensiveness. This article is shorter than the ones that I generally take to FAC, so I'm wondering if there are any holes that I'm missing. Also, comments on whether I've focused too much on a few refs - although there's really not that much out there on this breed. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on yet another interesting horse article, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement. I think this is nearly ready for FAC.
- The lead says The American Cream Draft is a rare draft horse breed, the only such breed developed in the United States. but the body of the article qualifies that statement as The American Cream is the only breed of draft horse developed in the United States that is still in existence today.[4] The led makes it sounds as if this the only draft horse breed ever developed in the US, the body seems to say it is one of several such breeds developed, though the only one still in existence.
- Tweaked.
- By the way, it might be useful to mention the other extinct breeds (assume there are not many, if there are many name a few). Also if the date of extinction of the last other breed is known, that would be useful to include (so something like "The American Cream is the only breed of draft horse developed in the United States that is still in existence; the X BREED went extinct in YEAR.") Not great, but gives you an idea hopefully
- I understand your point, but I honestly don't know what other breeds the source is discussing. They could be meaning the draft types that were prominent in early America, but these were more styles than actual breeds. Or there could have been some smaller breeds that died out in the early to mid 20th century as mechanization became more prominent.
- Problem with conversion Mares stand 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm) high and weigh 1,500 to 1,600 pounds (680 to 730 kg), while stallions and geldings stand 16 to 16.3 hands (64 to 67 inches, 163 to 170 cm) for mares 1 hand difference is 4 inches (60 to 64), for the stallons 0.3 hands difference is 3 inches (64 to 67).
- Actually, the conversion is correct. A hand is four inches (it's linked by the conversion template used), and to count portions of hands you use .# of inches. So, 14.0, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15, etc.
- I would briefly explain or link foundation stock in A cream mare with dark skin and a light mane and tail can be accepted for "foundation stock," while ...
- Done.
- Is this an error? Purebred American Cream foals that are too dark are accepted into the main breed registry may be recorded into an appendix registry.[4] If they are too dark how are they accepted in the main breed registry?
- That was supposed to be "to be accepted". Fixed.
- Avoid vague time terms like current Based on current knowledge, [the?] breed also does not carry the cream gene, even though breeders refer to the desired color as "cream".[6] Since the source cited is from 2003, I would use that year to define the knowledge.
- Fixed.
- Shouldn't the verb eb plural (are produced, not is produced)? ...and the gold champagne body color, ivory mane and tail, light skin and light eyes associated with the American Cream Draft is produced by the action of the champagne gene on a chestnut base coat.[11][12]
- Fixed
- Link foal on earlier first use and why is it capitalized here? The eyes of champagne Foals are blue at birth, darkening as they age, and a foal's skin is bright pink.[14]
- Fixed.
- Any way to avoid "map[ping] the gene" twice in one sentence? The mapping of the gene was announced in 2008, and an American Cream Draft Cross was one of the animals used to help map the gene.[16]
- Fixed.
- Tweak The breed descends from a foundation mare named Old Granny, who [which?] was probably foaled between 1900 and 1905. She was first noticed at an auction in Story County, Iowa in 1911 and purchased by Harry Lakin, a well known stock dealer.[5]
- I think that "who" is correct in this instance. "Which" sounds to me like an object, rather than an animal.
- I assume the breeding program mentioned in the last sentence is specific to Colonial Williamsburg In the villiage they are used for wagon and carriage rides, and there is breeding program there that is working to increase breed numbers.[21] If so, it would help to say so, as breeding programs to increase numbers have already been mentioned.
- Fixed.
- Refs used look OK to me and there does not seem to be an over-reliance on any one source.
- Images are also fine (though I did not check all)
- 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 ><>°° 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I tweaked a couple of Dana's tweaks. Dana is correct on the conversion and we can't seem to find any other draft breeds developed in the US, most stuff here other than the American Cream is, at best, crossbreds from stock of the European breeds. To the extent some American-developed breeds had workhorse uses, they were the all-purpose breeds like the "foundation type" Morgan, which is not at all a draft-type animal, just a sturdy one. Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)