Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reveiw

Nice article that clearly explains the breed. Well illustrated. Just a few quibbles.

lede

"The breed developed physical characteristics, including a low weight to height ration and unusual footfall pattern, to help them move on the soft ground of the peat bogs." - this statement implies that evolution is Lamarckism. - perhaps say "which increased their ability to move on the soft ground ... (or some such).
This is Dana's lead edit article, so other than fixing a typo in this section, I will wait for her to fix or comment but I would ask you to clarify; we are talking here not about evolution but about selective breeding of a "benign neglect" sort, that which is basically landrace change, not evolution. Would saying "The breed developed landrace physical characteristics" be clearer? --Montanabw

reply

then it should say "the breed was developed (or bred) to emphasize the characteristics of low weight etc. ... or something to indicate that the characteristics were intentionally bred rather than evolving (evolution) on their own, without human intervention. Landrace sounds closer to evolution - like natural selection which does not aim for a specific goal like size or foot type etc. Perhaps this can be clarified. You're saying that before humans were involved, the "breed" developed these characteristics? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(moved long distracting comment to Talk:Kerry Bog Pony#moved long distracting comment from GA1 to here)

(returning comments since Dana boomer approves of them)

Thanks for clarifying; I think I should defer to Dana to make the needed refinements in phrasing on this article, as she is the one with access to the source material. For your own background understanding, what happens with many of these "landrace" breeds is that they're shaped buy both environment AND human intention; i.e. humans select for the animals best suited to their needs in a given place, ignoring or culling unsuitable animals, but the climate, geography, etc. of the place also weed out weaker animals. BUT the other piece is that people brought horses to weird places (like bogs -- or deserts or jungles) where any sensible wild horse would never bother going, so that too was a human influence on what otherwise looks a lot like natural selection; the breed had to, somehow, adapt to an odd environment to be able to serve human needs. Horse domestication is a really complex issue, see History of horse domestication theories - as, basically, Y-DNA studies suggest that there were extremely few male animals originally domesticated, and their descendants were crossed on different populations of wild mares as domestication spread. So, for example, the ancient ancestors of most of these British Isles/Irish feral and semi-feral pony breeds were probably already small, fuzzy creatures adapted to cold, damp weather when domesticated horses arrived, the crossing of calmer horses with good dispositions on the native animals created a pony that was different from the wild ancestor in that it would cooperate with humans (as opposed to the still-wild Przewalski's horse, which is still prone to kick the shit out of people to this day) and meet their needs for a working animal in some weird place totally unsuitable for horses, yet because they lived in a semi-feral state of indifferent human care, they also kept their adapted characteristics and even developed new traits. Does that make sense? And is it adaptation, natural selection or artificial selection? Or all of the above? (Sorry to geek out on you, I happen to find the overall topic rather fascinating) Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

"possibly another adaptation of living on peat bogs" - again implies, IMO, that evolution is not random but rather moves an organism to adaptation to a specific environment.
And again, we aren't talking about evolution, but about breed adaptation, same stuff that made domestic dogs into everything from chihuahuas to Great Danes. (smile). So can you suggest ways we can be clearer about this? --Montanabw

reply

then again I suggest making it clear that these characteristics that are intentionally bred into the animal (as dogs are intentionally bred to have different characteristics) rather than saying "possibly another adaptation of living on peat bogs" - adaptation - "in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection", i.e. evolution - unless you are saying this happened before humans were around. Dogs for the most part didn't become different breeds through adaptation but were selectively bred for specific characteristics. Natural variations in dogs would have occurred through natural selection before human's came into the picture. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As above, but I'm a little concerned that we don't venture into WP:OR territory, as it's a chicken or egg question. I wonder about the differences in dogs too, such as the Husky (arctic) versus the Saluki (desert). What was adaptation and what was human-caused? I mean, Chihuahuas, yes, humans really went to work to make something that small and unique, but the working animals -- a combination of environment and human need again. Cannot really say pure artificial selection OR natural selection, it's a combo. Curious what studies out there in general on this? Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I think you are venturing into OR. Please link to breed adaption or some sourced clarification that distinguishes adaption as in natural selection from your use of it, and also clarify in the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

"The ponies were discovered by the cavalry in 1804" - hadn't they already been "discovered"? - perhaps another word - or just say they were used during the wars by the cavalry (which cavalry?) - or am I wrong?
Reworded (if Dana is OK with change). Better? --Montanabw

"Between 1995 and 2012, Flashy Fox has sired over 140 foals, and has played a significant role in repopulating the breed." - perhaps fit this info into the chronological order of the section. Or put into parentheses?
Leaving that one for Dana. Generally, I personally hate using parenthetical comments if they can be avoided, but that's just me. --Montanabw
I'm really not a fan of parentheticals. However, I don't really see a way that this could be fit in strictly chronologically, because it covers such as large period of time. Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Don't quite understand the format of the infobox after "Breeding standards". Co-Operative Society of Ireland has no breeding standards? So should it be listed?
We link the the registry's breed standards page because they usually are long and too extensive for an info box -- and sometimes even for the article's characteristics section. It's a bit clunky, but it's an issue for the infobox, not this article. ;-) (smile) --Montanabw
No, the "Kerry Bog Pony Co-Operative Society of Ireland" is all one registry, and the breed standards are linked. It's not "Kerry Bog Pony" and "Co-Operative Society of Ireland". Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

What are you saying "no" to? Montanabw? or me? This review is quickly becoming confusing. I am considering failing and give you a chance for another reviewer. I really don't want to get into an intense discussion over evolution or be confronted with more long musings from Montanabw. Needn't wait the seven days. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to reply to you, but apparently got the spacing wrong. Your habit of outdenting replies is making the review rather difficult to read and reply to, especially when in the edit window. Not sure why you would consider failing it - there is nothing but good-natured discussion here, and I don't see how the long comment from Montana was so distracting that it needed to be moved to the talk page - I have seen GA reviews far longer that go much further off topic. In any case, I have attempted to rectify all of your concerns above - I really don't see the major problem with the initial wording (they were not selectively bred by humans for bog-friendly characteristics, they developed those while living in a feral state in the bogs), but have changed it anyway, because it's not a big deal. I hope you reconsider your decision to fail the article - it seems rather silly for the article to have a permanent "failed" notation over something so minor. Dana boomer (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anyway, good job! (Will put on hold for seven days while you respond.) MathewTownsend (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

(edit conflict)

reply

ok, that's your opinion and of course you are free to have it. However, I have mine also and this review has become unpleasant for me as the reviewer. I don't consider the confusion over adaption minor at all but major. I dislike the confusion caused by Montanabw's lengthy and distracting comments which I removed to the talk page but have now returned to this page. That you see no problem with them isn't the point. I'm sorry that you can't have any understanding of my problem with what went on, but what seems like no big deal to you is a big deal to me because it's tiring. I like reviews to be straight forward. I wouldn't have chosen to review this article if I knew she would be involved.

I will read it through and if it's ok now I will pass it. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer comment on this article, as I tried to be helpful, but the reviewer has just now removed my comments to the article talk and there basically told me that I am stupid. I do not wish this GA to be derailed because the reviewer did not appreciate my attempts to explain an issue. This article also should not be failed out of spite because the reviewer dislikes me due to a previous dispute, as I am not a significant editor on this particular article. However, it is my view that if this reviewer cannot separate my comments from the review, then it would be wrong to fail the article; the reviewer simply should graciously decline further review of this article with neither a pass nor a fail, refer it to a different reviewer, and allow someone else to examine it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you don't understand how GA works. It's not possible to "graciously decline further review of this article with neither a pass nor a fail, refer it to a different reviewer, and allow someone else to examine it." If I want out I must fail it. And at this point, I do want out. Before you posted this, I was ready to continue. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually possible to do that. You just post on the GAN talk page that you wish to withdraw from reviewing the article, and ask that another editor take over the review. This generally gets a good response. However, again, I see nothing in Montana's post above that is impolite, incorrect or combative, and she has stated her intent to no longer comment at this review, so I'm still confused as to where the problem lies? Mathew, really, GA reviewing does occasionally necessitate getting into long discussions on technicalities, even when you consider them "tiring", and does even require sometimes getting into rather heated discussions (which this isn't). Just giving up because you don't want to work with Montana doesn't really seem polite or fair to me, the person who did the majority of the work on the article and who has, as far as I know, responded to all of your points. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after inactivity

It has been over a month since the above. If the review is not going to continue, it can be put back into the reviewing pool. Just let me know what you'd like to do; it's been inactive long enough. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Dana, but given that Mat and I seem to just find ourselves in a fight everywhere we go, I think that someone else should do a fresh review. See here. I don't know the way out of this, BlueMoonset, but Dana has yet to weigh in, so if you want to give her a bit more time to respond and then if she is offline, maybe you can just put it back into the queue for a fresh reviewer, I'd be OK with that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! I saw this a couple of days ago, but then forgot to reply... Christmas stuff, and my brother's home on leave :) I'm good with whatever - I would hope that Mathew would continue reviewing the article, but if a fresh reviewer wants to step in and have at it, that's fine with me, too. I had been planning to wait until after the holidays to ping Mathew, but if it's getting to be one of the longest "on-review" articles at GAN (I don't know, haven't checked), then dumping it back in the queue is OK by me. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite willing to continue this review, as long as User talk:Montanabw stays out of it. She has been quite rude to several editors at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests under Stephen Hawking, on Talk:Stephen Hawking, on the talk page of Malleus[1] and on my talk pageUser_talk:MathewTownsend#Hawking_lists, accusing established editors of POV and especially tearing into SandyGeorgia multiple times on various pages. I don't care what she says about me, but she seems to carry grudges to an alarming degree.

For the sake of my friend Dana, i will stay out of commenting on this article unless it appears that Mat is bringing her grudges against me into this review, to Dana's detriment, at which point I will ask that a different reviewer look at it. I do wish Mat would not have chosen to raise her accusations against me here, though; rudeness is relative, and she and Sandy have been positively vicious to me, though clearly Mat sees it otherwise. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this article is concerned, I think you've addressed my concerns, so I'm willing to pass it after one last look through. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things. "isbn:1580176135 - did not match any book results." (Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America), according to Google.

What are "dished profiles"?

Still checking sources and such.

Please check for close paraphrasing, e.g.

"DNA studies have shown the Kerry Bog Pony to be most closely related to the Welsh Pony, and also to other Northern European breeds such as the Shetland pony and the Icelandic horse. It is more distantly related to its more geographically close neighbor, the Connemara pony." (article)

DNA studies indicate that genetically the Kerry Bog Pony is closer to the Welsh pony than to its geographically closest neighbour, the Connemara pony. The KBP is more closely related to the Northern European breeds such as the Icelandic and Shetland pony ... (source[2]) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Irish" to "The cavalry became aware of the ponies in 1804" - is that correct? Placed on hold for response. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
After this was copy edited, the article was in messy condition. I went through and cleaned up poor wording, lack of punctuation, misspellings etc. Some one needs to check my work since now I am one one of the major editors of this article now.

Some question about close paraphrasing, as pointed out in the discussion above, plus using the word "dished" (unattributed) since changed. The rest of the article should be checked for this, since so few sources are used.

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
Only a few, short sources are listed that may be using each other's information Other than these, there is the one book and the one French source (both unaccessible on line); Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America seems like a superficial source and isn't focused on in depth information on origin of Irish ponies, looking at the reviews of the book online. The French source is unavailable. The websites have little info, IMO, and seem to rely on each other for information. Some points are not clarified.

I added "Irish" cavalry as a guess as just saying "the cavalry" was unclear, but I'm not sure my addition is correct.

The (Irish - my addition) cavalry became aware (unclear what "became aware" means) of the ponies in 1804, during the Peninsular Wars, (one source says Napoleonic Wars in Europe; another says "Many Irish equines were used as pack horses or as cavalry horses during the Peninsular Wars (1804 - 1814) and again a century later during the Great War.") and used them in the wars as pack animals; most did not return to Ireland. - I added "Irish" (for cavalry) but I'm unclear about the Peninsular Wars, the involvement of Ireland and the Bog Ponies in it, and exactly what happened after: e.g. Spanish donkeys were brought to the island to replace the ponies (why?)

There is some question in my mind, after reading the sources, whether the ponies originated in Spain, not Ireland.

c. no original research:
Not sure. See Montanabw's long comment about, and other concerns I have expressed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
History could be more comprehensively covered (e.g. roles in wars), where ponies first originated, e.g. Spain?

"In 1756 Charles Smith referred to a visit by Isaac Ware to Kerry in 1720 and to Ware's observation that such horses were formerly called Asturiones, as having been originally imported from the Asturias in Spain."[3]

Could mention that DNA testing is required for registration.

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Although this is now considered an "Irish" horse, it is a relatively newly identified breed. It's history is murky. It emerged from 200 ponies and one sire and bred into a "breed" by one man.

Again see Montanabw's lengthy comments above.
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall impression is that this article was not carefully written, and was nominated at GA too quickly, without proper clean up and thought. Much of the poor prose, sloppy mistakes etc. have been fixed hopefully, but I'm unsure that this is a accurate article about a breed, or rather one that is "pushed" by certain "official" sites.

Suggest a more careful assembly of "facts", wider, less incestuous sources, more careful prose, then resubmit article for GA. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew, I think you have just done the LOWEST THING POSSIBLE to Dana boomer, and I think it is a wholly personal slap at me, not her. You PASS every criteria for GA, then fail the overall article, and I can only presume that you are doing so because of your intense personal animosity toward me. I suggest that you reconsider this bad faith fail. Dana is, clearly, not around at the moment to defend herself or her article, and those of us trying to answer your issues in a timely fashion are acting in good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was too nice in my review. The items I questioned should have been failed. I never received an answer to my last question about "Irish" - the whole thing about the wars and the ponies from Spain is unclear. I'll also add that I question the adequacy of the sources for this article. Bog Pony Co-Operative Society of Ireland[4] is cited 10 times (by far the major source), but there is no information as to its reliability, as it's a breed fancier's site. Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America is used 6 times but it's doubtful its a reliable source for this rare breed of pony (reading the reviews of this book). The only other sources are a handful of brief newspaper articles.

And please stop your incessant failure to assume good faith with me. It's getting wearing. As SandyGeorgia has said more than once[5], comment on the article not on the editors.

You are a bully hiding behind AGF. You clearly have failed to AGF with me. Diffs on request. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review clarified

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
After this was copy edited, the article was in messy condition. I went through and cleaned up poor wording, lack of punctuation, misspellings etc. Some one needs to check my work since now I am one one of the major editors of this article now.

Some question about close paraphrasing, as pointed out in the discussion above, plus using the word "dished" (unattributed) since changed. The rest of the article should be checked for this, since so few sources are used.

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
Only a few, short sources are listed that may be using each other's information Other than these, there is the one book and the one French source (both unaccessible on line); Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America seems like a superficial source and isn't focused on in depth information on origin of Irish ponies, looking at the reviews of the book online. The French source is unavailable. The websites have little info, IMO, and seem to rely on each other for information. Some points are not clarified.

I added "Irish" cavalry as a guess as just saying "the cavalry" was unclear, but I'm not sure my addition is correct.

The (Irish - my addition) cavalry became aware (unclear what "became aware" means) of the ponies in 1804, during the Peninsular Wars, (one source says Napoleonic Wars in Europe; another says "Many Irish equines were used as pack horses or as cavalry horses during the Peninsular Wars (1804 - 1814) and again a century later during the Great War.") and used them in the wars as pack animals; most did not return to Ireland. - I added "Irish" (for cavalry) but I'm unclear about the Peninsular Wars, the involvement of Ireland and the Bog Ponies in it, and exactly what happened after: e.g. Spanish donkeys were brought to the island to replace the ponies (why?)

There is some question in my mind, after reading the sources, whether the ponies originated in Spain, not Ireland.

c. no original research:
Not sure. See Montanabw's long comment about, and other concerns I have expressed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
History could be more comprehensively covered (e.g. roles in wars), where ponies first originated, e.g. Spain?

"In 1756 Charles Smith referred to a visit by Isaac Ware to Kerry in 1720 and to Ware's observation that such horses were formerly called Asturiones, as having been originally imported from the Asturias in Spain."[6]

Could mention that DNA testing is required for registration.

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Although this is now considered an "Irish" horse, it is a relatively newly identified breed. It's history is murky. It emerged from 200 ponies and one sire and bred into a "breed" by one man.

Again see Montanabw's lengthy comments above.
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall impression is that this article was not carefully written, and was nominated at GA too quickly, without proper clean up and thought. Much of the poor prose, sloppy mistakes etc. have been fixed hopefully, but I'm unsure that this is a accurate article about a breed, or rather one that is "pushed" by certain "official" sites.

Suggest a more careful assembly of "facts", wider, less incestuous sources, more careful prose, then resubmit article for GA. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, so you didn't know what you were doing the first time you reviewed? An experienced GA reviewer such as you? Yes, this is proof that you have a personal issue here, your vindictiveness is showing. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]