Wikipedia:Peer review/Banker horse/archive2

Banker horse

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for FAC (maybe...).

Thanks, Yohmom (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

I enjoyed this article very much. It is clearly written, thus easy to follow even for people like me who know very little about horses. I can only review prose and presentation; I strongly recommend that you ask one of Wikipedia's horse people to look it over for comprehensiveness and accuracy before you take it to FAC.

My comments are few, because I didn't see much wrong with the article as it stands.

Lead: I think the lead could do with some expansion, in order to fulfil the FA requirement that the lead be a summary of the entire article. It falls a bit short at the moment Not done
National Park Service requires linking Done
"Espanola" – what exactly does this refer to? Is it "Hispaniola", the Caribbean island, or somewhere else? Should be clarified and linked. Done

Linked to Hispaniola. The book uses "Espanola" but it's the same island so I went ahead and changed the article text too...--Yohmom (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An estuary is a river-mouth, and cannot separate islands from the mainland. I am a bit puzzled by the wording in this paragraph – why the "such as", the "can be", the "normally"? The Outer Banks are real islands, not hypothetical entities. They have specific dimensions and features, and are separated from the mainland by an actual body of water. So why is the prose so tentative here? Not done

Erm...I'm fairly certain that an estuary can separate islands from the mainland. I've literally got one in my front yard, (barrier islands and all!).--Yohmom (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some numbers, e.g. "sixty" (the only one I can remember off-hand) need to be written numerically. Done
The last sentence of the article begins "Today...", which is inspecific: every day is "today". Suggest rephrase. Done

Hmm. I dorked around with it a bit. It's better than what it was, but I'm still not too fond of it. If anyone has a re-phrase go for it. --Yohmom (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can come up with. I hope it checks out with the horse experts. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda: This is a reasonably solid article, the following are some suggestions to improve it to FA standard.

Barrier islands are a unfamiliar concept to me, and I suspect will be to other readers as well. The photo is good, as is the link to barrier island, though I think this needs to be linked the first time it is used; currently it is not linked until the Life on the Barrier Islands section. Done However, having got a picture in my head from the photo, it's something of a surprise to read of 180 acres of fenced pasture. I notice you have uploaded another photo, File:NPS-_Cape_Hatteras.jpg—is this more typical of the barrier islands that the horses live on? If so it might be a better choice for the article. Done Then having read that the islands can be 30 miles offshore, it's a surprise to read of horses getting hit by traffic on Highway 12. You also talk about Ocracoke, Shackleford, and Corolla—I presume these are barrier islands, I don't think it's explicity stated. Done I think what would help here is a map of the barrier islands, indicating at least the locations where the horses are found, and possibly things like towns (if there are any) and Highway 12. Done Also are Ocracoke, Shackleford, and Corolla and the Rachel Carson Equine Sanctuary the only places where Bankers live? Not done

I played around with making a map in Photoshop...are you thinking of something like this? --Yohmom (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's great! The image description page should give the source of the underlying map though. (I presume you based the image on an existing map rather than going out and surveying the area :) Dr pda (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the licensing now? I tried to model it off another uploaded map.--Yohmom (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better :) Dr pda (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've changed the section heading to Currituck Banks you should add indicate where this is on the map too.

Done Dr pda (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and just when I thought that I was finally done with trying to figure out Adobe...How about now?--Yohmom (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "pasture" has now been changed to "area". I can see now how the original word could have been misleading since the conditions are not exactly the lush fields that come to mind. The cape picture is a poor example because usually the islands are at their widest there. Also, I don't think there are actually and horses on the capes. IMO, the current picture is 100% representative of the islands. --Yohmom (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All locations now mention "island(s)" in some form or fashion.--Yohmom (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Characteristics section has a lot of horsey jargon. I realise this is necessary to correctly describe the breed, and while it is possible to click on each of the links to find out what they mean, I think this section might be improved by a diagram such as File:Horse_parts.jpg. That one is not very good quality and has more information than is needed in this context. Perhaps it would be possible to make an improved version; if a suitable photo of a Banker horse exists maybe you could label that instead. Done

This hasn't been done in any of the other horse articles. I tried to keep the horsey lingo to a minimum, but certain parts are unavoidable. The picture would be easy to do, but I feel like the text:picture ratio is pretty good as is, and I don't want to make the page into a photo gallery. --Yohmom (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section has been tweaked since I commented on it. Most of the terms now have sufficient context that one can understand the sentence without being lost in jargon. The one exception is the chestnuts, where the sentence now reads The chestnuts are small, on some so tiny that they are barely detectable, and most individuals have no chestnuts on the hind legs. This gives no clue as to what chestnuts are, and the reader doesn;t find out where they are until the end of the sentence. Dr pda (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added callousities to the sentence. It might help, it might not. That sentence was just recently changed and the callousity part left out; I'm not really sure if it was for a reason though.--Yohmom (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article seems to be describing feral horses, but at one point you mention domesticated Bankers. Is domestication common? What are domesticated Bankers used for? Done

lol. Since there are so few domesticated Bankers, they really don't a trademark use. Thoroughbreds race. Clydesdales pull heavy things. Warmbloods jump things. Bankers are...lawn ornaments?? Really, they barely qualify for "good trail horse." --Yohmom (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read somewhere that you wanted to create a redirect to this article from Shackleford pony. If this is a common alternative name it should probably be mentioned in the article. Not done
The paragraph directly beneath the Management and adoption heading does not cite its source. Done
Feral horse and Wild horse don't need to be in the "See also" section as they are linked in the body of the article. Done

Some nitpicking points:

To protect habitat from overgrazing—should this be the habitat? Done
National Park Service should be linked the first time it is mentioned (which is in the lead) Done
The lead should summarise the whole article; currently the sections after and including Life on the barrier islands are not really covered. Not done
Is it necessary to specify the typical heights as between 13.0 and 14.0 hands, rather than just 13 and 14 hands? Done

I based the sig. figs. on the Thoroughbred article. It's FA and includes the extra "0."--Yohmom (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred uses three significant figures because the range is 15.2 to 17.0, and presumably it would be misleading to round 15.2 hands up or down. Here we don't have that issue, so the question becomes what sort of precision are you implying about the upper and lower limits? Is the typical height between 50 and 58 inches (13 to 14 hands) or 51.5 and 56.5 inches (13.0 to 14.0 hands), remembering that the uncertainty is half the smallest significant figure. The easy answer in this case is to see what it says in the reference which supports this statement. Through the wonders of Google Books I am able to discover that the average height is "13 to 14.3 hh", in which case the sentence should read 13.0 to 14.3 hands.

Thanks so much for catching that! *Smacks self on forehead* Fixed now. --Yohmom (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the section of this book raises a couple of other points. There is some information on history/uses of the Banker which could be added to the article.

Not done Also, the work should probably be cited only as Hendricks 1995, rather than Hendrick & Dent; Dent only wrote a foreword.

Done Dr pda (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to give some idea of where San Miguel de Gualdape was. Done
what is now present day Ocracoke—the words "what is now" are redundant here, and present-day should probably be hyphenated. Done
the ships included various types of livestock—ships don't normally "include" animals; it would be better to say either "the ships carried" or "the ships' cargo included". Done
limited nutrients in their diet.[17] The Banker grazes mostly on Spartina grasses, but its diet —you should be consistent about using singular or plural Done
such as those located on Currituck Banks—"located" is redundant Done
the islands are surrounded by salt water and none have freshwater springs ...—this might possibly flow better by replacing "none have" by "have no" Done
the moisture in consumed vegetation—this sounded a little odd to my ear; perhaps "moisture in the vegetation they consume" Done
Initially, the NPS believed that the non-native horses would completely consume the Spartina alterniflora grasses and the maritime forests, both thought to be essential to their survival.—rephrasing the last clause as "as both were thought to be essential to their survival" gives a better connection with the following sentence. Done
a research study in 1987 provided—"research study" is redundant; either "a study in 1987" or "research in 1987" convey the same information. Done
Who manages the horses on Ocracoke? It is implied that it is the NPS, but not stated. Done
The areas ~~serve to~~ protect—another redundant phrase. Done
Since 2000, adoptions of Bankers from Shackleford are managed by the Foundation for Shackleford Horses. As of 2007, 56 horses have found new homes, 10 reside with another wild herd on Cedar Island and 2 have been moved to the Ocracoke herd.—careful with tenses. Should possibly be "have been managed", "had found new homes", "resided", "had been moved", since 2007 is in the past. Done
Those who tested negative—wouldn't "which" normally be used for animals? Done
Thus the 76 infected horses were euthanized. A total of 78 horses died in the process, a number that includes a horse fatally injured during the roundup process and a negative-tested foal that slipped into the quarantined herd to be with its mother.—the bolded phrase is a bit wordy, and could be simplified to "Two more horses died in the process—one fatally injured ..." Done
What are the Corolla commissioners commissioners of? Not done
To me the verb adopt usually carries the connotation of receiving the individual being adopted, which makes a sentence like the population is now managed by the adoption of yearlings imply that horses are being adopted into the population. Perhaps adopting out would avoid this? Done Also, who adopts the Bankers? Is it open to anyone or only certain groups? Not done
the reserve’s carrying capacity—is the carrying capacity different from its capacity? Done

I have always heard of "carrying capacity." It is wikilinked now so I am inclined to leave it as is.--Yohmom (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find the above comments useful. Dr pda (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]