Wikipedia:Peer review/Thoroughbred/archive1

Thoroughbred

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 April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine has a goal of getting this article (among others) to FA status and would welcome any suggestions that would help improve the article towards that goal.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth: In general, this article reads well, seems complete, and is clear and interesting. I enjoyed working on it, and I learned a lot about Thoroughbreds. In the process, I did a fair amount of copyediting, but quite a bit of nit-picky stuff still needs to be attended to.

The last paragraph of the lead needs a re-write. Perhaps making "health issues" the essence of it rather than leading with the idea of controversy and protests would do the trick.

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology section is confusing. It's not clear why the appearance of the word Thoroughbred in the General Stud Book would have led to the misuse of the term. In addition, it seems contradictory to say that "horse breeders" consider it incorrect to use Thoroughbred to refer to any other breed and to say in the next sentence that "breeders of other species" do exactly that. This paragraph could do with a re-write for clarity.

Done (by Montanabw). This paragraph is the source of much discussion, and has been rewritten several times. The main editors seem to agree that it needs to be included, but not completely agree on what it should say or where it should be placed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use en dashes in page ranges. For example, the Erigero entry in the reference section should be p. 287–94. I see lots of other instances in the notes section.

I'm lazy, I usually get Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his dash script over articles before going to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full dates like the one in the Finley entry in the reference section should be autoformatted.

Will fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write out "percent" as word in simple constructions such as "Ten foundation mares account for 72 percent of maternal (tail-female) lineages, and, as noted above, one stallion appears in 95 percent of tail male lineages."

got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid using "Thoroughbred" in the section titles and subtitles since it appears in the article title. In the history section, you might simply use "In America", "In Europe", "In Australia and New Zealand" and "In other places" and drop the word Thoroughbreds.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructions such as "1,000 Guineas" and "19th century" need to have no-break codes inserted between the number and the unit to prevent them from being visually separated by line-wrap. See WP:NBSP. I fixed a few of these, but I see a lot more.

got as many as I can see. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation in some of the short references is missing. For example, "Phifer Track Talk p. 38", should be "Phifer, Track Talk, p. 38".

I don't see any at the moment Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where possible, add ISBNs to books in the reference section. For example, "Napier, Miles (1977). Blood will tell: Orthodox breeding theories examined. London: J. A. Allen" appears to be ISBN 0851312543. In general, make the citation data as complete as you can. You've done this already for most but not all of the citations.

got as many as I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image captions could be improved by including just a bit more information in them that would link them better to the accompanying text. An example would be the caption, "Matchem". You might add something short and important about Matchem.

Expanded most. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the horses in images are shown running into the page, and this is good. The horse in the infobox is an exception. If you have an equivalent photo of a horse running into the page and drawing the reader's eye with it, that might work better.

If I have to, I can just flip the current lead image in photoshop when I get home.. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been replaced by one that is clearer, with the horse facing the other direction. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find these comments helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for all of these.

Further Finetooth comment: I never publish flipped photos because flipping runs the risk of distorting reality in sometimes unpredictable ways and it also meddles with the aesthetic perceptions of the original photographer. You might be able to flip the horse photo in the infobox, but questions come to my untutored (in horses) mind like "Do the runs on the infield grass go either way, or do they always go clockwise?" Experts might spot something else odd or impossible about a flipped photo. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment re: photo. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. It looks fine. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]