Wikipedia:Peer review/Icelandic horse/archive1

Icelandic horse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article went through a GA review in April and now I'm working on taking it to FAR. I would like comments mainly on the accessibility of the article for non-horse people, so thoughts on excessive jargon would be especially useful. Also any comments on alt text, as this is my first attempt at it...

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text looks fine to me! Also, I had (almost) no problem with jargon.
• I'm just reading the lead, and sometimes I'm not sure if the word "Icelandic" refers to the the island country or the horse breed. For example, does "considered horses by most Icelandic breed registries" mean registries concerned with sub-breeds of Icelandic horses, or registries geographically based in Iceland? Part of my confusion here probably stems from not knowing what a breed registry is. Is there a difference between a breed registry and a breed society? ...In fact, the fact that the Icelandic is considered a horse doesn't need to be in the lead anyway; it weakens the flow, it's already the first sentence of the body, and it's unnecessary to emphasize since "horse" is right there in the title. :-)
  • We've done some cleanup on the lead to hopefully make it more clear when the country is being discussed and when the horse. A breed registry and a breed society are the same thing, and I've moved the wikilink up to the first occurance to make this more clear. The point that an Icelandic is a horse rather than a pony is a rather key distinction with this breed, and it's something that IP's tend to like to edit war over - hence the repetition between the lead and the body, and the extensive referencing in the body.
    • Okay, this is largely good. I have a bit of a pet peeve with Wikipedia articles whose leads bend over backwards to prevent edit warring, as the results can become unreadable, but it's not so bad here. One regression though: "Horses living in their native Iceland have few diseases..." This phrase strongly suggests that there are other horses living in Iceland besides Icelandics, which I gather (below) is not the case. Perhaps you could mention in the lead that they're the only horses present, and then you could use the phrase "Icelandic horses" without fear of ambiguity. Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Added a phrase to the lead specifying they are the only breed.
• The lead, 2nd para, has a few too many centuries: 9th, 10th, 9th, 12th, 18th. It's a little hard to follow. Some of this detail can probably be saved for the body.
  • Removed one of the century references altogether and changed another one to a more specific decade reference. Better?
    • Yep! Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is the Icelandic the only breed of horse present on Iceland? It's suggested as several points, but I'm not sure if it's ever spelled out.
  • It is the only breed, and I have said this specifically at the end of the history section.
    • Okay, this seems important enough to understand the context that I would put it in the lead section as well. See also above. Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is it "horse fights" or "horsefights"?
  • "Horse fights". Fixed.
• I'm not sure why the "See also" section links to Fjord horse and Faroe pony. What's the relationship? Some short descriptive text would help.
  • Both breeds are similar to the Icelandic. Descriptive text added.
• In a few points the prose is kind of awkward. I made some changes here and there, but hopefully an experienced copyeditor can have a look. Other than that, it's pretty good! Melchoir (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much for the quick response and the prose review. I'll be working on these comments over the next couple days - real life jumped on me just when I thought I'd have time for this :P. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the suggestions. I've interspersed my comments with your above, and if you have any more thoughts, please feel free to drop them on here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, more comments inline. One more thing: in the new lead paragraph, every sentence after the first is some kind of compound: although, but, beyond, and, with, as well. This is tiring to read. A simple sentence or two, sprinkled in between, would help. Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to split this up a little, although I may have only succeeded in making it worse. Prose is probably my worst area, so if you would like to take a chop at it, please feel welcome. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

comments from Casliber

Looks good - I am resorting to nitpicking - check my edit summaries for making changes and I am doing mini-edits to allow for explanations. Trying to find ways to reduce repetition without losing meaning but is tricky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence - The Icelandic horse is a breed of horse developed in Iceland, and is the only breed of horse in that country. - the jarring of the two clauses bugs me, but I am currently stumped on how to rephrase.....

Thank you Casliber! I've tried to reword the lead a little bit to break up the first sentence. Check and see if it looks any better? Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not thrilled with seealso sections and would be inclined to develop "

• Islandpferde-Reiter- und Züchterverband, the association of all Icelandic horse-clubs of Germany" into a one-or-two sentence segment after "Almost 50,000 are in Germany, which has many active riding clubs and breed societies".

• Ditto with the two breeds mentioned - the link being parallel development (?)

The last tricky bit I can see is the early bit of Breed characteristics where 'source' is mentioned a couple of times. Looks awkward - if naming the source is not useful, then maybe phrasing in passive is better here.

Overall looking good, and worth a tilt at FAC soonish I'd hazard a guess :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. I've removed the two instances of "source" in the breed characteristics section, and integrated the links in the see also section into the prose. I have one more person that I'm going to ask to copyedit the article before I take it to FAC, so it should be there within a couple of weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, it's well on track. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)