Talk:Banker horse/Archive 1

Potential Resources

1. http://www.shacklefordhorses.org/ Shackleford
   • Much good material here. Better history section than most. Home page is cutesy and initially a turn-off because of that, but inner pages have good data. I think this one is pretty credible overall. Mild "PR" tone, but not excessively commercial. I'm OK with this one, particularly the history and characteristics pages specifically. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2. http://www.corollawildhorses.com/ Corolla ?
   • History section is actually pretty good, though the home page is quite commercial. ("GIve us money, and did we say Give Us Money?")(grin) History sub-page if cited will pass muster if there is data not found elsewhere (it does cite its sources, sort of), though if other, more credible sources have the same material, they are preferred. Shacklefordhorses.org is a bit less comercial, for example, and the gov't sites, hardcopy books and peer-reviewed articles better yet. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
3. http://www.corollawildhorses.com/Images/HOA%20Report/hoa-report.pdf lots of breed characteristics
   • Credible for its contents, i.e. the study performed. At least in my opinion. May want to be aware of bias of author or researcher, but looks like a decent enough source to me. May want to verify background info and verify some claims against traits of horses in general. (If you put in content to the article that raises eyebrows, we'll let you know!) Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
4. http://www.visitcurrituck.com/corolla-wild-horses.cfm Corolla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohmom (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Not much there that isn't repeated elsewhere. OK if data there not found elsewhere. The bit on cultural heritage may be unique?? Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
5. http://www.corollawildhorses.com/Images/ordinance.pdf Corolla wild horse ordinance (Need original source)?
   • Original source better, but pointing out that it is the "Currituck Wild Horse Ordinance" needs to happen for sure, that point was buried on the "help" page of the site.
6. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/28/national/main322579.shtml?source=search_story CBS News: conflict w. humans
   • Good for the news topic, credible for the events discussed, the general background info should be verified against better quality articles. Reporters don't always get the background info right. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
7. http://www.thehorse.com/viewarticle.aspx?ID=9259&source=rss Shackleford Herd Control
   • Credible source, and free, but requires registration to view articles, just have to tag that when you cite it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
8. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/field_offices/billings/horseeas/2004.Par.49854.File.dat/2004FinalPZPEA.pdf. Herd Control
   • Credible source for Pryor Mustangs and BLM mamagement practices in general. (I've looked at it for Mustang (horse), though I don't think it's cited there) If used, keep in mind data is on the American West, not the Shackleford Banks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
9. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=225&type=0 Gov. Shackleford Banks Wild Horse Protection Act
   • Not a lot of info, but highly credible source for what's in it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
10. http://www.springerlink.com/content/4k753344505368r5/ Effects of Grazing on Marsh
    • Springerlink a paid database. Source very credible, but will need to cite to hardcopy edition. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
11. http://www.springerlink.com/content/tjnrc4rj4876bxlu/ Effects of Feral Horses--erosion--
    • Springerlink a paid database. Source very credible, but will need to cite to hardcopy edition. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
12. http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Levin_2002_ConservBiol.pdf More effects on marsh, and a bit on birds?
    • Credible source. No problem with WP:V here, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Dohner, Janet Vorwald (2001). The encyclopedia of historic and endangered livestock and poultry breeds. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08880-9.
14. http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.3375%2F0885-8608%282008%2928%5B187%3AMOFHAT%5D2.0.CO%3B2 Management of Feral Horses
    • Paid database. Source very credible, but will need to cite to hardcopy edition. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Engels, William (May, 1952). Vertebrate Fauna of North Carolina Coastal Islands II. Shackleford Banks , American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 702-742. The University of Notre Dame
16. http://www.nccoastalreserve.net/uploads/File/general/siteProfileChapter3%20.pdf Horses at Rachel Carson
    • Credible source, good quality material. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
17. http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/oiko/abstract.00010351-200201000-00013.htm;jsessionid=LbYL7hy81v6PcLqSr3sp8YwJJJVpBxG26Zdhs0d3XcYGky2DNH32!1177656273!181195629!8091!-1 Effects on enviroment
    • Only the abstract is online, appears to be a paid database. Looks to be peer-reviewed article, so credible high quality source, but must cite to hardcopy. Abstract doesn't mention horses or how horses impact habitat, presume the article itself might...? Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
18. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/legacies/NC/200003243.html "Local legacy"
    • Good source for the politics of the situation and basic historical and genetic claims. Not a lot of depth, but usable for its actual content and a credible source. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Ruffin, Edmund [1856-1865] (1989). The diary of Edmund Ruffin. Edited, with an introd. and notes, by William Kauffman Scarborough. With a foreword by Avery Craven. (3 v.), Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0807109487.
20. Gruenberg, Bonnie. Hoofprints in the Sand: Wild Horses of the Atlantic Coast
21. Feral horse seasonal habitat use on a coastal barrier spit. Rheinhardt, R.D. Rheinhardt, M.C. Journal of range management. 2004 May, v. 57, no. 3 p. 253-258. ISSN 0022-409X
22. http://books.google.com/books?id=yHs9Qez-B_kC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=di+rubenstein+shackleford&source=web&ots=WoyK5WG1NW&sig=m5l7hK-EfL0XTl45MuaYQxYaMtw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result basic.
    • Credible source on Shackleford Banks horses, though notes on behavior of bands are common to all feral horse herds. I like this source quite a bit. Cite to book, ask Ealdgyth how to embed Google books link, but cite to hardcopy. Stuff on native plants they eat in that environment is interesting (Poison Ivy? =:-O ) How they get water is interesting. IN short, this is a good source for many things, even if kind of an overview...many things unique to these horses is here...horses that live on barrier Islands have adapted to an ecosystem not natural for them, so much good info. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
23. http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:UIcX8qeI_1sJ:www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/%3F%26sid%3Dcp105SaYVO%26refer%3D%26r_n%3Dsr115.105%26db_id%3D105%26item%3D%26sel%3DTOC_11856%26+%22Genetic+Analysis+of+the+Cape+Lookout+National+Seashore+Feral+Horse+Herd&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us basic
    • Very credible source, sound data, no problem with WP:V, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
24. http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/colonialspanish.html
    • Acceptable for breed standard of the Colonial Spanish horse, acceptable for conformation qualities and traits of Spanish-type horses. Credible for what is a rare livestock breed and status of such breeds. Historical claims iffy, (non-Spanish horses began to be imported to the eastern seaboard in the 1600s, not 1800s, for example, and Thoroughbreds by the 1700s for sure) so historical claims will need more scholarly backup if used. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
25. http://www.horseoftheamericas.com/
    • This one is pretty iffy. Not a lot of data, some of it sort of colloquial. "Conformation" link is almost scary... (What the heck is "blue corn" as a coat color -- just one example, I've been around horses all my life, "blue corn" has yet to cross my path, and I know a LOT of color breeders! LOL! ), probably not much there that you can't find elsewhere and of better quality. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Blue corn is a very odd term for a blue roan. Or so I was told, once long ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Makes sense, but overall the site is pretty promotional, light on content and generally iffy, the color bit is just the tip of the iceberg! (Not that I haven't tried to use sites like these as sources in the past! me bad! LOL!!) Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I always thought that they were pretty much the same thing as a blue roan, but when guys of this colour get cut, their hair grows back without the roaning, giving them black markings. But, I do see the credibility (or lack of) issue here. --Yohmom (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd have to see photos of what you are describing, but this sounds like a roan -- I've seen roans grow in dark hairs over wounds, particularly wire cuts. Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • And...this is the only site I have found that mentions an oval shaped cannon bone in Bankers. Should I just delete the information in the article? --Yohmom (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I reworded that clause I added. The cites don't quite say strong bone is the reason, but you run across this claim in many places, particularly in the Spanish breeds, usually more at PR cites than elsewhere (which made the Haflinger cite a better-than usual web source, it's a registry, at least). I think the whole claim needs a vet journal or at least some sort of more solid analysis, as some web sites talk about "round" cannon bones, "flat bone" referring to both the tendon AND the bone, etc...if there is something out there that says a) a oval-shaped metacarpal is a stronger bone than round one, and b) such bone shape is indicative of Spanish colonial horses, then you have something worth keeping for sure. And given that the claim is out there, maybe someone HAS done such a study. In the meantime, it's sourced and doing no real harm, so I'd let it sit for a bit. Easy to toss later if no better verification. Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
26. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2279567&blobtype=pdf --Yohmom (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Graded: There not many --- hopefully the ones you have are not fringe - I'm still wondering if there is another "search term" that could be used here to generate more sources?--JimmyButler (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment on the list is that this is a more comprehensive reference list than 90% of that horse breed articles. Most look pretty decent, most are from sources that would pass muster with the WPEQ team. Montanabw^(talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Yohmom, I'm glad to see you're already starting to research!! That's really the hard part. Just a quick note: The Shackleford Foundation is likely a good place for you to get background information, but it probably does not meet the WP criteria for a reliable source. Generally, private websites are not considered good sources unless they provide their own sources, have been cited by newspapers/journals/etc (so we know they are reliable) or are written by an acknowledged expert. It's definitely okay to use it in the article for now (it can point you to other information that you want to find in another source), just be aware that when you are ready to go for FA we might have to find a different source for any information that comes from that. Karanacs (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That said, though Karanacs is right, sometimes with these rare breeds, private websites are sometimes all you have, so my opinion is **A** source is better than no source! The small horse breeds are particularly difficult to find the types of sources wiki likes best. I would note that The Horse online magazine, a publication affiliated with the AAEP, is a pretty decent source for backup, meets WP:RS, and has had articles on the Banker Horse. Also, give WP:EQUINE a shout if you need help. Note our horse breeds task force (linked in the infobox at the top of this talk page) has some general guidelines for expanding all the breed articles. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about reliable sources. This is more of a brainstorming of the somewhat credible top Google hits. If you see any that are too alarming, just say so. Thanks again for the help...I certainly need it.--Yohmom (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of this looks promising. Be aware that things like Springerlink are paid databases, so you will have to cite them to the actual hardcopy publication because they are not free access (can't remember why that is, Karan may be able to explain, but see also WP:CITE and WP:V. What can sometimes work with questionable sources that don't seem to cite to an unimpeachable source is to use multiple ones that are not mirrors of one another. You may also want to do a quick review of related articles such as feral horse, Mustang (horse) and Brumby to get some ideas and examples. Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to access any full-text peer review articles that are not subscription...pity. One of the Springerlink articles is compleatly accesible to the public (for free) so can I reference the website or should I go track down the original publication?

Also, I am a bit confusing on your previous comment[[User talk:Montanabw]. So questionable sources, as long as they offer the same general information and are not affiliated, are okay? Then again, I guess I could just try and find better sources...right now I am just trying to avoid stuff like this.

Again, this is only serving as a brainstorming list- some of the subscription sites are serving as bookmarks for the "real" reference. User:JimmyButler wanted us to post a list just to see that we are making a little progress. --Yohmom (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You CAN use the springerlink articles, you just have to cite them as hardcopy and can't use the URL to springerlink. Anything free, including abstracts that do contain the needed info, CAN be cited with a URL. Sometimes an article in full text on Springerlink still has the basic info in the abstract free on PubMed or something, so that can be used. My take is write and cite the stuff the best you can. It helps to cite as you go. Much harder to cite later. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For FA status, questionable sources won't be allowed. That said, at this point go ahead and use them to get your facts together. We can look for better sources to replace some of these later, but it is important that you have enough right now to have a broad overview of what type of information is available. That will help point you in the right direction of what else to look for. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That said, most of what you have listed above looks pretty good. To be specific, 1-3 will work for information about the organizations themselves and for information that cannot be located anywhere else. 4 and 5 are sufficiently mainstream to be considered reliable sources in the horse world depending on what they are cited for (news sources aren't always gold standard for accuracy, so it depends on actual content) and sources 6-10 are absolutely gold standard if properly used, though citation may need to be to non-paid sources of the same content (i.e. you can get a photocopy free through interlibrary loan, you have to pay for springerlink). Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw.That was perfect clarification. I checked with our public library about interlibrary loan, and the lady seemed a bit baffled, so it might take a while for me to get to the main branch to make my requests. --Yohmom (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

another resource

• Dohner, Janet Vorwald (2001). The encyclopedia of historic and endangered livestock and poultry breeds. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08880-9.

This book, which I just recently received, has two pages on the Banker Horse, which I"m more than glad to help source into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this has become quite useful. Plus, it has a really cool picture of a chicken on the cover.--Yohmom (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Goals

My class in in a somewhat official competition with these fine young fellows and we have settled on an end date, December 17the, since it is the end of their semester. However, I won't be receiving a grade on this until late spring of 09. Still, for the sake of competition and school pride I would like to shoot for GA by December. Sound reasonable?Yohmom (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is probably doable if you have time to do the research now. Working backwords from that date, you might try to reach the following milestones:

• December 3 — Nominate for GA (it can take time to get a reviewer to look at the article)
• November 23 – Dec 3 — Make article meet manual of style guidelines; this includes making sure citations are formatted properly. This is a step where I and others who are assisting can help most with, because we are more familiar with the guidelines. This timeline could be compressed; I left it this long because Thanksgiving falls right in the middle.
• November 13 – Nov 23 — serious copyediting - This step can be shortened if necessary, but the more time we have to do this, the better. I and some of the others assisting will help out with this step.
• November 2 – Nov 13 — initial copyediting; This is something you will likely be doing mostly by yourself. Once you've added all of the information that you have, you often need to reorganize or reformat sections so that they flow better together.
• by November 2 — add all of the information into the article that you have found. Make sure all information is sourced. At this point we can do an informal peer review and ask the opinions of those in the equine project to make sure that the article is comprehensive enough.

It is up to you whether you do all of your research first and then add information into the article, or whether you read one source, add the info from that source, then move on to the next one. As you add info, though, make sure to watch any edits that other people make. I might fix Manual of Style errors early so that you know what to look for next time. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that you look at the other horse breed GA articles, Haflinger (horse), Arabian horse, and Appaloosa? I think the Haflinger article in particular, being the shortest, is a good example to start from. The wikiproject Horse Breeds Task Force also has some specific guidelines for breed articles that this article will need to add in (at least to some degree) to get the WP to support GA, but we WANT to support you, so feel free to ask questions! Another article about a feral horse breed that is not GA but probably could get there if we took the time to deal with it, is Mustang (horse). You may also want to compare this article to Chincoteague pony, another east coast colonial breed, to see if you get any ideas. When you get closer to GA, both DanaBoomer (who did the Haflinger article) and Ealdgyth, who has weighed in here and has numerous FAs and GAs to her credit, will be able to give you a good, thorough analysis. (I prefer to wordsmith and shepherd the article as it is in progress, myself). Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Other possible sources

I did a quick and far-from-thorough search of the 'Agricola' database of the National Agricultural Library. The search function is free to use: see [1] Some of these articles may prove useful to make 'Banker Horse' a comprehensive article.

• Title: Equine feeding practices in central North Carolina: a preliminary survey.

Author: Honore, E.K. Uhlinger, C.A. Found In: Journal of equine veterinary science. Aug 1994. v. 14 (8) p. 424-429. ISSN 0737-0806

• Title:Feral horse seasonal habitat use on a coastal barrier spit.

Author: Rheinhardt, R.D. Rheinhardt, M.C. Found In: Journal of range management. 2004 May, v. 57, no. 3 p. 253-258. ISSN 0022-409X

• Title: Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds.

Author: Luís, Cristina Bastos-Silveira, Cristiane Cothran, E. Gus Oom, Maria do Mar Found In: Journal of heredity. The American Genetic Association 2006 Mar., v. 97, no. 2 p. 107-113. ISSN 0022-1503

• Title: Genetic Diversity in a Feral Horse Population from Sable

Island, Canada [electronic resource]. Author: Plante, Yves Vega-Pla, Jose Luis Lucas, Zoe Colling, Dave de March, Brigitte Buchanan, Fiona Found In: Journal of heredity. The American Genetic Association 2007 Sept., v. 98, no. 6 p. 594-602. ISSN 0022-1503

• Title: Domestication of the horse: Genetic relationships between domestic and wild horses [electronic resource].

Author: Kavar, Tatjana Dovc, Peter Found In: Livestock science. Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier 2008 July, v. 116, no. 1-3 p. 1-14. ISSN 1871-1413

Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I have noticed that some articles have footnotes and some just have a list of references. Should I use one format over the other or is there a distinction between when to use them? Is there a guide for this?--Yohmom (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guide!!!! Wikipedia thrives on guidelines, policies, etc.

Policy

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

Guideline

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style

As for citations themselves, see

• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Footnotes
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style

Harvard referencing seems to be quite popular: see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For GA or FA, you will definitely need footnotes or other inline citations. Harvard is only popular in some spots. The Equine project speaks footnotes (it's my influence!) so we're more comfortable with that system. It uses {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} to format the references at the bottom, and <ref> and </ref> for the actual footnote numbering. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To make it simple, see Thoroughbred and steal the formatting style we used there! LOL! Or ask Dana and Ealdgyth to help! Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GAH! Just when I think I am catching on to citations... Could someone possibly correctly format the citations for notes 1 and 4 (from the same source)? I have seen that letters are used to denote the different places where the source was used, but I am having trouble with the HTML code. --Yohmom (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Be glad to! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What I did was use the "name" parameter in the ref tag to attach a name to the ref, so that later, you can just go <ref name=(name)/> and have it refer back to the already named reference. Do you see how that works? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I looked at a couple of articles and tried to figure it out earlier... with no luck. Seeing it in a more familiar context certainly helped.--Yohmom (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wait til you start doing the "group" parameter to make separate explanatory footnotes from the source footnotes! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I hereby invite you...

to come play in my sandbox!

I am a bit afraid to jump right and and start butchering the article, and in an effort to keep the revision numbers reasonable, could someone critique part of the characteristics section there? I just want to make sure that the citations are not compleatly off base, and that my syntax and diction arn't too horrible...--Yohmom (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, made a few tweaks. Don't forget to incorporate any useful material already in the existing article. Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Content question

Yohmom, you may want to reconsider that new material about the horses being "base wide." That is a horse conformation flaw, and as a rule, in the breed articles, we don't describe conformation flaws as inherent breed characteristics. (We do mention things like genetic diseases or concerns with inbreeding, if they exist) Just a thought. Sometimes this stuff stems from source material that isn't super-well written itself. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, aye captain-- consider it removed! And now, I present you (or anyone else who feels like answering...) with a list of questions!

1. Parasites: not a "genetic disease," but a problem. Where would this go?

2. Inbreeding: this is not a problem; however, many people think it is. Should it be mentioned somewhere that it is not a concern?

3. Debatable/Questionable history and origins: Should this be said in the "introduction" or does it need its own section?

4. Sources: Don't like 'em? Feel free to strike them out. If you could then please explain why they are not credible (ex: too many ads, strange information, ect.) that would be super-helpful. Chances are, if yall wouldn't use them, I shouldn't either.

5. Citations: Am I doing these right? Cheers,--Yohmom (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Unless there are weird parasites out on the islands not known to other horses, parasites are a general problem for horses and only should be mentioned if it is something unusual (Like sand fleas or something like that that is endemic to the region they are from)

2. If it is a common concern it should be mentioned and explained.

3. The way I do articles is that I write the whole thing, and then once I'm settled, I summarize the article into the lead, picking a point or two from each section/paragraph. Much easier that way.

4. Will look later.

5. Pet peeve, don't use abbreviations in the references (unless they are REALLY well known, such as BBC or CNN. Anything not THAT well known should be spelled out. The Sponenberg ref is lacking a publisher. Otherwise, looking pretty good for now. Don't forget to include non-web sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Fixed the abbreviation. Could someone take a look at the Sponeberg ref? I am still not quite sure who the publisher is...Heritage Southwest? VA Tech?

Non-book sources:I might be opening up the floodgates to a debate here but...I am actually hesitant to use these if there is equally credible information available online. One of the key draws to Wikipedia is instant accessibility to the sources, so thus I favor the web over books. However, I fully understand that credibility and information cannot be compromised in an article and do not plan on completely neglecting them. Does anyone have any objections to this? --Yohmom (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care what the format is of a credible source. A rule of thumb: books tend to be an efficient source of information. If you can find three books at your local library on a topic, you'll find it easy to write an FA quality article. I'm not making this up. It is the advice of a very prolific FA writer: Cla68 (talk · contribs). See Advice on preparing a history article for FA. Cla68 writes:

Having the right references is the most important part of writing the article. Search the Web or the local library and find all the references you'll need for the article. I suggest at least three. Books are better than websites because they're often more credible and websites come and go. Try your local public or university library or you can buy used books online very cheaply.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I second Was' advice, and the key here is "Equally credible". Most serious research isn't hosted on the web. Most websites get their information from books/journal articles/etc. Obviously, the rescue organizations website will be useful, and any local papers that might have run stories will be good too, but nothing will give you credibility at FAC like some good scholarly works backing up those websites. An article that is sourced to all websites at FAC gets more scrutiny. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Yoh, I added a cite for a tweak I made to the article...the oval cannon bone thing is a desired characteristic of other breeds too, I found a couple of examples, one to Andalusians, a Spanish breed that is among those that contributed to the Colonial Spanish Horse, and the Haflinger, which is not. I many not have formatted it right (I make poor Ealdgyth fix my booboos...) but I felt that if the trait is listed as an "official" one, then rather than chop it, a short note that it isn't unique was suitable. Toss if you want.

As for the book issue, Was and Ealdgyth are right. However, as I LIKE websites too, but recognize their limits, the workaround (which I can't recall how to do, but I think Ealdgyth did it for Thoroughbred if you want to steal the ref formatting) is to cite to the hardcopy book, but if text of the book is also online, you can also embed a link to Google books or something if you want to. Or if the book isn't online, use two sources, one web -- ideally web that cites the book, and one cite to the hardcopy book or article itself. Also, on articles, those from peer-reviewed journals are ideal, those from respected mainline magazines acceptable. Most have hardcopy and online versions. If the web site isn't free (JSTOR, Springerlink, or some of the other paid databases), then you have to cite to hardcopy. Hope this helps Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fortunate One

Alexis, You are fortunate to have a team willing to expend that much energy in a critique. It may look formidable; however, they have just made your task considerably easier. I trust you will not disappoint and will address these concerns to the best of your ability. This is an interesting article, with great potential for FA at some point down the road. Best of luck. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sable Island Pony

Would a mention of the Sable Island Pony be appropriate to this article? I think there are other examples of isolated horse/pony breeds on islands in North America. Should they be mentioned at all. I'm not saying they should be...just putting the thought out there. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link to the Sable Island Horse/Pony. These horses became isolated on their island in 1760.

• Sable Island Horses

This is just a "For Your Information"...don't feel you have to add it to the article. You be the judge of that. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, and IMHO,no. I'd avoid starting a "laundry list" of this sort. It could get endless. See feral horse. There are at least five or six barrier island populations up and down the Atlantic coast, the most famous being the Chincoteague pony. There are also some domesticated critically endangered breeds in the area, such as the Carolina Marsh Tacky that might also want to be on the list. We could maybe expand the laundry list in the "see also," but frankly, I think that a ref to feral horse covers it. But another possibility is to do a new article on these barrier island populations as a group, sort of like Iberian horse. Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your position. I like your idea of an barrier island horse article. In some ways, it probably would have been better to have started with such an article as, I suspect, many of the isolated horse populations share many similarities. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Start out with an organized plan on wikipedia? You dreamer, you! LOL! Another idea would be to take the list at feral horse and break it down by geographic region. Maybe trot over to that article and see what you think. We can continue the conversation there also. Montanabw^(talk) 09:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Like so many things on Wikipedia, such an article isn't going to be worked on - at least by me - until sometime in 2012 or thereabouts :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be called "Banker horse"?

As the section heading says ... --Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is "lowercase second and subsequent words in titles" unless the whole title is a proper noun phrase such as a first and last name. I think it is safe to say that it ought to be "Banker horse". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a policy. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Renamed. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Occasionally, "Horse" is part of the breed's official name (as in American Quarter Horse, NO ONE calls them "quarters!"), but most of the time the breed is just referred to by "first name" so to speak, and "horse" is just added to avoid confusion at wiki (as in Arabian horse). Here, the horses are colloquially called "Bankers," so I favor the latter construction and I am OK with this move. (Anyone now want to do the same for the other 200 or so mis-capitalized articles on list of horse breeds, particularly the pony ones?)  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Graduate opportunity

Well, I don't see any outright prohibition on ads for grad school in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines guideline. So I'll risk it. Some editors working on Banker horse may be interested in a posting on the Ecolog listserv...

Opportunity: Ph.D. or M.Sc. to Ph.D. (transfer) in resource selection strategies of feral horses

Location: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada and Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada

Description: We are currently developing a long-term, individual-based program of research into the ecology and evolution of the feral horses living on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. As part of this initiative, we are recruiting a student to ask questions of resource selection strategies (including optimal foraging) using the horse population as a model. This research will complement a team of at least two other students working on questions of horse life history and plant community ecology on Sable Island. The student is expected to begin between May and September 2009, and will be guaranteed a full 3-year fellowship. Additional funding opportunities are available; we especially encourage students with funding in hand or who will be competitive for scholarships to apply. The student will be co-supervised by Dr. Philip McLoughlin at the University of Saskatchewan (home department for the student) and Dr. Daniel Fortin at Université Laval (the student will be expected to make several visits to the lab of Dr. Fortin). Field work will occur during summers. Candidates should have a strong background in quantitative ecology, behavioural ecology, and population ecology. Deadline: Review of applications will commence in March, 2009. Interested applicants should send a cover letter, CV (including 3 references), and transcript via email to both Dr. Philip McLoughlin (philip.mcloughlin@usask.ca) and Dr. Daniel Fortin (daniel.fortin@bio.ulaval.ca). Please contact by email for more information, and/or visit these websites:

http://www.usask.ca/biology/mcloughlin/ (in development)

http://www.cef-cfr.ca/index.php?n=Membres.DanielFortin?userlang=en

Additional information on Sable Island (the site of field work) can be found at:

http://www.greenhorsesociety.com/

Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Loads of the stuff that comes up on the search engines at the library deals with the Sable Island horses. This sounds cool, but I should probably try to graduate highschool first...--Yohmom (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously smarter than the average bear Yohmom, so get back to work and think about a proper lead for your article. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How Stuff Works

Is this credible for a basic definition of "barrier island? " http://science.howstuffworks.com/barrier-island.htm --Yohmom (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that'll be fine as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Someone might want to check to make sure that they are licensed correctly, and that what is put in the article is formatted right. --Yohmom (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The licensing looks OK to me, and I tweaked the formatting earlier. It's fairly simple - no images left-aligned directly under headings, no forced sizes except for the lead image, try to stagger them left and right, and don't sandwich text between images. Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Would it be possible to create a re-direct to this article from the search term "Shackleford pony?" It's what everyone down here calls them.--Yohmom (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thanks! I figured that this might improve the chances for someone other than my dad to read the article. --Yohmom (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent supporting images; hopefully they will pass muster with the copyright police! How nice that your father stays abreast of your academic endeavors. I'm willing to bet your article will be a source of information for far more people than you think. Good luck on the GA attempt - one more before the close of our semester and we can advocate for a tie (FA Race) with the University of British Columbia saving me the cost of a can of opossum stew --JimmyButler (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I bet, if the truth be told, that even you are surprised that your students are doing so well in the competition. Right up there with the university bods. So far as this article's concerned, just Google "banker horse" and see what comes up first. It's not just Yohmom's Dad that'll be reading this. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just me

I'm not commenting a lot here any more, just doing little tweaks where I think I can improve things (whether I do or not is, of course, open to debate). Looks very good. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just popping in to agree with Montanabw that things are looking very nice. I just saw that you put it up for GAN, good luck! Just as a note, if you haven't already seen it, you may want to check out the fact tag and hidden comment that Montanabw dropped on the page. You probably have plenty of time to deal with it, as the GAN backlog is a bit long right now. I'm doing some reviews to help, won't do this article because I've contributed a bit to it, but hopefully my efforts will make other editors get around to this article sooner! Please feel free to let me know if there's anything I can help with :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about the ref. The whole paragraph came from that source, although I am still checking to see if I can get a more specific/better source for that part about the wrecks. --Yohmom (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Woo-hoooooo!

Yay! Congrats and very nice work, Yohmom - your first GA! Take a quick break and a nice long breath and then answer the most important question - do you plan to take it to FA? *grin* Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Yohmom! Montanabw^(talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've inspired me :) Countercanter (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Congrats on the GA. The main editor has asked about going for FA, so I'm starting a new section for advice on further improvements. I've only looked quickly at the article myself, but two observations arose already. One is the lead section, which doesn't really cover the whole article as well as it could: see WP:LEAD. The other is that FAC is likely to require page numbers in citations, so it would be better to split the Notes section in to Notes (with the authors and page numbers) and References (with details of the sources). Geometry guy 23:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the FAC will require page numbers. (I'm generally quite cranky about requiring them when I do source checks...) (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh the irony. I just returned the books to our regional library and now we start getting all specific with page numbers. It may be a few days before I get them back in my grubby little hands...heh heh. --Yohmom (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FA is a pretty big step up from GA; all of the details matter at FAC. Remember as well that "first impressions are lasting impressions", and take Geometry guy's advice about the lead. That's your showcase. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers are important. Be lucky I didn't do you GA review, I feel they should be in all the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I always strongly encourage page numbers during a GA review, but they're sadly not part of the GA criteria. Which is a shame, I think, because adding them retrospectively is sometimes almost impossible. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eeek! How do I do this???--Yohmom (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Step one: Don't panic! LOL! Step two, find all the books and dig out the pages where the stuff was and add page numbers (the templates have a spot just add |page= ). I know, that sucks. I have to do the same on a book that I used for about 20 gazillion sources on Arabian horse and haven't gotten around to it yet (a year later... um... er...). Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WHICH you should be doing. Otherwise, I'm going to have to cut that out of the article because it really needs to go to FAC soon... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm...Did I do it right? I did the first one under "Notes." --Yohmom (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I a little confused. Why did you add all of the templates under "References"? The first one under notes looks OK if you want to use a split reference format (author, title, page in-line, full reference under references), which may be a good idea because there are some books you use multiple times. However, when using the split ref format, you should only do it with the books - the journal and web references should stay as they are in the in-line format, and you don't have to have their information in the references section. I hope this makes sense - check out Suffolk Punch to see what I am talking about. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can do the short form with websites and journals. I do it all the time with history journals, see Stigand or Hubert Walter where journal articles are cited multiple times with the short ref/long ref format. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That helped a bit, but erm...what is the difference between p. and pp. for the pages in the notes section? Are the two different?--Yohmom (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"p" is for a single page, as in p. 68, and "pp" is for a range of pages, as in pp. 68–69. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This part is hard.

And I don't know what I am doing.--Yohmom (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've got the right idea on the p and pp thing, I'm not seeing anything that's jumping at me that's wrong. Malleus? (Keep in mind I've spent the day working either on packing my house or on Wilfrid, one of the least likeable of saints... so I'm a bit .. out of touch with reality) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why you ALWAYS (are you listening Montana?) insert your page numbers when you WRITE the article. Trust me. Just do it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You should say that again Ealdgyth, louder next time. Trying to remember where you came across stuff even a few days ago is hard enough. But to make it worse, the sources you then find sometimes mean that you have to rewrite the text to fit what the source you're about to cite actually says. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding page numbers and split references: I quit. If they are right, then that's great. If they are wrong...well it's someone else's problem now.--Yohmom (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this a little bit on Yohmom's talk page, but here are a few more steps that Montanabw and I came up with:

• Another PR, which this time will not be taken over by the horse crowd.
• Dropping notes on the talk pages of some related Wikiprojects (North Carolina, Mammals, etc) to see if there's anyone around that's interested in taking a look.
• Asking for a specialized image review from User:Awadewit and bribing Ealdgyth into asking a few more of her copyediting friends to take a look :)

Just some thoughts... Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I left notes on a couple of the related project pages (bothered some of he FA team too!) for some additional input. So you think that I should bribe Ealdgyth for copyeditors?? Does she like chocolate? :))--Yohmom (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't like chocolate. Besides, you dont' want me copyediting. I can make it through GA on my own writing, FA, I need someone to help my prose. I'm sure if you talk nicely to Malleus though, he might be open to bribes. Although poor guy, all he sees are bishops and horses lately... (well, and weird historical documents...) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because I shared one copyeditor with you .. ya'll think I'll share others??? Don't you know copyeditors are rarer than platninum? Or twin foals? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll wordsmith a little as I have time, but will probably be mostly confined to cleanup. Let's be sure that we give Yohmom time to actually pass her other classes too! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi guys, I saw this one at Wikiproject North Carolina, I'll give it a go. Yohmom, welcome to you and to the whole class, I see you're catching on very quickly. I'll make some edits directly to the article ... all the guys in the thread above know me, and they'll be happy to revert me if they disagree :) I have some questions:

• In the lead, it's just a little confusing (for some readers, not all) to say that a "breed" is compact, because a breed is a kind of category, and a compact category means a category with not a lot of things in it. Also, as a horse layman, "small" is implied to me by "compact", so unless there's a special horsey meaning, I'm going to keep "compact" and boot "small". Also, we copyeditors tend to be at our pickiest in the lead section. But I could be wrong, let me know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Small to most horsepeople doesn't necessarily imply compact. Compact means close-coupled, with muscling. Small doesn't imply that the animal is well muscled. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. We've still got the problem that "small, compact" will sound redundant to most readers. Is there a way to make it clear that it's not redundant? Could we maybe say "small, well-muscled", at least in the lead? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Hm... check with Yohmom on that, I'm not sure what the sources day exactly, and I've not had any experience with this breed so don't know if indeed they are well-muscled or if a non-horse person put the compact in. As an example, I'd call a mustang, compact, but a same sized Arabian wouldn't necessarily get that adjective. Mustangs as a breed are usually compact, Arabians are just a small breed. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmm... apparently they vary from fairly massive and heavily muscled to a more slenderly built and less excessively muscled conformation with their muscles being long and tapering... Sounds like they can be about anything...--Yohmom (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• There's an ongoing battle in Wikipedia over how much to rely on links to define words, instead of giving a quick definition. I don't think we should say "feral (wild) horse" in the first sentence because I don't want to break up the phrase "feral horse", but I wouldn't mind changing "feral" in the 3rd sentence to "feral (wild)", both because the style of popular publications that copyeditors like to follow would probably define the word, and because when we stick a bunch of articles on the Wikipedia DVD at the end of the year and publish them, most of the links disappear. But lots of people like to argue about whether to link or not, and I prefer not to get involved. Just wanted to run the arguments by you. I lean more towards quick definition if a word that most people don't know is in the lead section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yohmom, if you like, take a stab at creating an extra paragraph or two in the lead section, giving readers a clue what's going to follow in the article. You can do it somewhat mechanically if you like; look at your section titles and try to write a few sentences that include them, or point to those ideas. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I"m going to do a little copyediting to see if I can tweak all of the above. See if it helps. It is VERY important to define these horses as "feral," as they fit that definition to a T. I have to say that if Bankers are like the [{Chincoteague pony]], I would not describe Chincoteagues overall as heavily muscled, as least not in comparison to the Pryor Mountain Mustang. However, the Bankers DO look more compact than a lot of gaited breeds--hard to say from the photos what's skinny and what's long coupling... And E, now, now... (grinning) Some Arabs ARE small AND compact...just not the "new style" stuff! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, it's looks like you've got enough copyeditors now :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no Dan, you're STUCK with the job. I'm not a copyeditor, that's for sure! Please! One thing I've learned at FAC is that the more copyeditors the better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating Links

I've used the dab finder tool here to find and fix two of the three dab links present in the article. However, there is one that I couldn't figure out. Currituck is a dab link, but none of the possible articles appear to be about an island, which this article implies by using the phrasing "on Currituck" in the second paragraph of the "Life on the Barrier Islands" section. Yohmom, would you like to take a run at this and see if you can figure it out, since you're the one with the true knowledge about the subject? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Long story short- it's the same thing as Bodie Island. (The one with the true knowledge? Whoa. Thanks for the ego boost. heh heh)--Yohmom (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Switch to harvb citation system?

Did someone ask someone to do this to the article? Otherwise, isn't it frowned upon to change referencing systems without discussion? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like they way the refs are done in the Intro to Evolution article. The way they link down from the notes to citation section is pretty sweet. I was playing around with the citations in my Sandbox, using the Harv citations, just to see if they would work any better with the page number thing (they haven't). But no...I'm not sure where this came from...--Yohmom (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, they just got switched... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. And weird.--Yohmom (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Argh! My error. I saw this and jumped in at the wrong place. If it's not welcome, please feel free to revert. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was just a little odd, and I didn't want to revert without finding out more. (As for the harvb stuff, I never touch it) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. It's not jumping down to the "reference" section at all. I was having the same problem in my Sandbox, but only for a couple. Two seemed to work and two didn't. (That's when I went running for help) So strange. --Yohmom (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I tend to avoid it except in articles with massive reflists, e.g. World War I. The templates are rather too sensitive to excess whitespace in the parameters of cite and citation, so they make for a high-maintenance result. This may change, but who knows when. Thanks for the understanding.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• WHOO! It's working now. (At least in my sandbox). So I guess I'll continue doing the rest there and then transfer them over, unless anyone has objections? --Yohmom (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• To summarize the issues that had to get fixed:
  1. correct "last1", "last2" etc.
  2. correct "year" or full "date"
  3. replace {{cite}} with {{citation}}
  LeadSongDog (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Done...I think.--Yohmom (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the diff it seems the only remaining issue is p.77 vs. p.177: which is correct?LeadSongDog (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching that. There isn't even 177 pages in the book!--Yohmom (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. My work here is done. Hi-o Silver - Away! LeadSongDog (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Make that hi-ho Silver - Away and see also white (horse)! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question here, why are the pubmed and other journal references (the two doi's at the bottom) listed under bibliography? No doubt there are differences between the fields of medicine and equine studies, yet (at least for medicine) I know that the bibliography section is frowned upon and generally used when numerous book references are present. Might I suggest, although I may be terribly wrong in doing so, that the journal's be linked within the section "Notes" which also be renamed to "References?" Sorry to be nit-picky, God knows I hate it when people try to shoot me down over such miniscule things, but I hope it's best in the long run. Food_Puma 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I found that out a while back, but between my shoddy internet connection and the PR, I haven't really had the chance to change it yet. It's not a super big deal so I've put it on the back burner for now. Plus, switching the stuff over in the first place was way more than my 5 brain cells could handle...they are still trying to recover! --Yohmom (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's standard practice to put the published resources in a separate Bibliogaphy section, so I think the present layout is just fine. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vital?

I think the Bankers are seen as a vital part of North Carolina's coastal heritage uses the word "vital" in a misleadingly weak sense. The statement is diffuse and indirect (some people think). My guess is that many people have come to think of the Bankers as a characteristic and desired element in the landscape. Maybe their grazing or trampling molds the landscape in an interesting and desired way, but the preceding paragraph suggests otherwise. In any case, the factual content should be expressed more clearly. --Ettrig (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement is obscure, even without the word vital. "Coastal heritage" sounds very positive and since the Bankers are part of it people want them to remain. But what is the actual substance, so to speak, of this goodness. What are the significant good aspects of this heritage? Or is this just a case of conservatism? If there are no answers to questions like this, then it may be better to just say that people like them to be there or think they are nice. --Ettrig (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ettrig, the statement is sourced. I believe the statement is in accordance with the footnote. Do you have a real point here, or are you just nitpicking? Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My complaint is that the statement is obscure. The defense is that the statement is probably true. This defense doesn't address the complaint. My problem is probably that I cannot see how something being part of a heritage can be a motivation for letting it continue to exist. A counter example: The January 2009 issue of Scientific American has evolution as its theme. On page 50 it says "...the human body resembles the tangle of wiring and pipes in an aging house, a heritage from fish and amphibian ancestors." and "Evolutionary hand-me-downs inherited from fish and tadpoles have left us with hernias, hiccups and other maladies". So heritages are not always good. So I doubt that this "explanation" provides a good understanding of how people think and feel about letting the Bankers continue to live on the banks. --Ettrig (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ettrig: feel free to be nickpicky, but please keep in mind that I have 758437280754230 things to do and my time on the wiki is very limited. I (kind of) see your point and will address it...eventually. The statement can be more specific, but the information is in a book that I no longer posess. It will take me a good two weeks to get it back from IRL so please just be patient for a bit. --Yohmom (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the right spirit. You read my comments if you want to and you do as I suggest if you find the argument sound. Virtually all kinds of people are found active in Wikipedia. The best thing to do is use your own judgement. --Ettrig (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing your point? I tend to do that. However As the Bankers are seen as a part of North Carolina's coastal heritage, they have been allowed to remain on the barrier islands. That seems to be a statement of fact. They are seen as part of NC coastal heritage. The battle over maintaining the population was based on that widely held view point. Whether such a view has merit would reflect a POV. But it is as documented in multiple sources a widely held perspective among those with a vested interest in the horses and the area in which they live; and thus is very relevant to the article. If I am not mistaken, the connection to the "coastal heritage" was the specific reason that NC govt. officials enacted legislation to protect the horses. The opposing perspective, that the horses are an environmental disaster is addressed in the article. I'm not seeing an imbalance or bias in the writing. Agencies, associations, and protection groups see them as a historically significant part of our coastal heritage. How else can one state that without diminishing their position? --JimmyButler (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is where I could toss in that fact from that book you gave me (if i remember correctly, them being the oldest NA breed...?). I've also got a statement on the way about the importance of keeping them around because of something to do with the need to preserve their bloodlines. I think it would address Ettrig's concern (but I might be missing the point too...), by providing further elaboration. If not, then the extra info can't hurt. --Yohmom (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this is a case of me being lost because I am an outsider. English is not my native language and I have been in USA for only a couple of months in total, never in NC. You have convinced me that that is how the argument was formulated in the actual debate. I still find it obscure, but that is not a concern for this article. --Ettrig (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Jimmy for the most part. Ettrig, maybe the language barrier is an issue, and a couple of American assumptions may be why there is confusion. Most horse people in the USA are aware that horses were extinct in the Americas from the end of the Ice Age until reintroduced by the Conquistadors. I think the point here is precisely the dilemma Jimmy outlined...Horses were not native to the barrier islands (and probably never were, even in the Ice Age, as horses don't live on barrier islands if they can help it! LOL!), and hence they do pose some ecological questions as an introduced species, but they are kept for historic and cultural reasons. For what it's worth, though (Jimmy) it's impossible for the Bankers to be the oldest NA breed, Columbus landed in the Caribbean in 1493 and Cortez had 16 horses with him when he landed in Mexico. I'll grant you the possibility of the east coast, maybe, but there were Mustangs running around the Southwest 100 years earlier! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I've found the same statement that they are "the oldest documented horse population in North America" in a couple of books today and even in a video documentary. One of the books then acknowledge Columbus, Cortes and even DeLeon brought horses first. Ugh. Probably some obscure use of the word population... --Yohmom (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

← You can agonise too much over the details. The article will never be perfect, because we're none of us God, but it's surely good enough. Any remaining minor glitches can be sorted at FAC. If you, Yohmom, as the content expert, are confident that the article is comprehensive and accurate, then now's the time to go for it. What's to be gained by waiting? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, If nothing else, you've learned that you can't trust everything you read in books, see on the TV ... you have to use your own judgement as well, which I think you've done in spades. If you're typical of your class then your teacher is fortunate indeed. Or perhaps extraordinarily talented. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting questions and comments

First off, let me say - well done! Rarely am I asked to copyedit an article which is so well-written already. I just kept falling into "reading" mode instead of "copyediting" mode while I was working on this article. That is a very good sign.

• The part of the article that needs the most work is the lead - it is not yet a summary of the article. The "Life on the barrier islands" section is not well-represented in the lead and this section contains crucial information about the animal.

Yeah, lead still needs expansion. In the sandbox, take the first sentence of each section,then make it into something readable. For an example of a killer lead on a looooonng article, see Horses in warfare. WPEQ is mighty proud of that lead, given how huge the article is, prose may not sparkle, but we hit every section! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Banker horse is a breed of feral horse living on the islands of North Carolina's Outer Banks. It is small, hardy and has a gentle temperament. The breed is descended from domesticated Spanish horses brought to the Americas in the 16th century. - Notice how each of these sentences begins "[noun] is". This repetitive structure is inelegant and tedious to the reader. I would suggest rewriting the first paragraph of the lead to vary the sentence structure.

Yoh, I think you fixed that bit didn't you? Looks like it to me. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Although considered an exotic species, the Banker is allowed to remain on the islands as a cultural resource. - I'm not sure what "cultural resource" means. Remember, when the reader is at this point in the article, they will not really understand how unique the horses are to North Carolina.

IMHO, that one got fixed, so I will tag if for you as (unless others disagree)  Done

• Sometimes the animal is referred to as the "Banker" and sometimes as the "Banker horse" - is there a reason for this inconsistency?

I think this is largely fixed. So a tentative  Done

• A Banker's gaits are long in stride - Should this be "gait is long"? Done

  Rephrased a bit. Gaits can be long- or short- strided. Trying to use good horse lingo and good English both. Sometimes a challenge! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article needs to use the serial comma consistently.

• The presence of the genetic marker Q-ac suggests a common ancestry which diverged 400 years ago from two other breeds descended from Spanish stock: - I found this sentence confusing. Done
• Bankers are often referred to as wild horses; however, since they descend from domesticated stock, the correct term is feral horses - Clearly define "feral horse" for readers like myself. I had to click on the link, which I should not have had to do - this is a key term for the article.  Done

• One of the most popular theories is that ancestors of the Banker swam ashore from wrecked Spanish galleons. - Popular among who? People who study horses?  Done

• Ships returning to Spain from the New World often took advantage of both the Gulf Stream and continental trade winds, on a route that brought them within 20 miles (32 km) of the Outer Banks. - I think that we are supposed to avoid phrases like the "New World", as the lands that the Spanish were exploring were not, of course, new. It is Western-centric. Is there a better word? Is "Americas" better?  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. - What is the "their" referring back to?  Done

This article was a pleasure to read. Awadewit (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Although considered an exotic species, the Banker is allowed to remain. This formulation implies that Banker is a species. --Ettrig (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)  Done

Banker (horse) ?

Hmm. Should this article be named Banker (horse)? I've noticed that in books it's always listed as "Banker." The "horse" part really isn't attached like the American Quarter Horse... --Yohmom (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that this article should be renamed "Banker", in the current economic climate? Can you even begin to imagine the abuse that would result? ;-) Perhaps you're thinking of a featured topic? Banker (horse), Banker (idiot), Banker (thief) ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, "Banker (thief)" made me laugh. Food_Puma 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)nam

Yohmom, the horse articles are all over the place on this. For linking, it is way easier to link Banker horse than Banker (horse)|Banker horse, if you get my drift. We have [{Arabian horse]] and Morgan horse, but Holsteiner (horse), etc.. I say it doesn't itch, don't scratch it. And, by the way, all, you forget "Banker (slimeball)" LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yohmom, the parenthetical "(horse)" is used on many articles about individual horses and, unfortunately, also on horse anatomy articles and horse breed articles. This can cause confusion. For example, Chestnut (horse) now is a disambiguation page. I would move this article to Banker (horse breed), and do it now, before it goes to FAC. --Una Smith (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Montanabw on this one and say leave it as it is. The horse breeds are all over the place with regard to naming, and it's current form is easier to link. I can't think of any articles we have (although please point some out, Una, if I'm missing them) that end with "(horse breed)" and so changing its naming to this would be simply adding another layer of confusion to the pile. This is a discussion that needs to be held project wide, but hasn't been yet, so the article is hurting nothing by staying at "Banker horse" for now, and for the duration of the FAC, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. I think I checked the holsteiner page to see how that one was listed and assumed that there was some sort of uniformity in the articles (haha). It's no big deal.--Yohmom (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, since it has come up, I think I will push the issue. If the horses are known as Bankers, not Banker horses, then "Banker horse" is incorrect and some parenthetical disambiguation is needed because "Banker" refers to something else that arguably is the primary topic. Change the page name, and refer to the animal throughout the article as Banker, the Banker, Bankers, etc. Re what parenthetical to use, "(landrace)" may be more accurate; see Landrace. I'll be happy to fix all seven (!) incoming links from mainspace. --Una Smith (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Una, I am going to formally ask that you DROP. THIS. NOW. Pretty please. With maple sugar on top. Your personal obsession with disambiguation issues has disrupted articles across wikipedia from Weymouth to Tumbleweed. And you know what happened to you on your Tumbleweed crusade. This particular work is an article that is part of a high school student's class project and if you derail a legitimate article's run for FA and pick on a kid, just to pursue your personal agenda on what it should be named, I guarantee you that such will be viewed with considerable concern by the administrators of wikipedia and I will personally make absolutely certain that they are aware of this. Montanabw^(talk) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

... and I'll be right behind you Montanabw. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not picking on anyone. Cut out the ad hominems, please. --Una Smith (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simple: according to Yohmom, the animal is not known as "Banker horse". So, for correct usage, links to the article should be piped anyway, like this: [[Banker horse|Banker]]. We might as well give the page a name that encourages future editors to use a pipe. A suitable page name would be either Banker (horse breed) or Banker (landrace). Yohmom, which seems more accurate to describe these horses, horse breed or landrace? --Una Smith (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Una, please quit. We have no existing articles that end with "landrace" and to start moving articles to that now would just confuse the matter more. We have one article that ends with "horse breed" (that being the Salerno (horse breed)) and that's only because we have an individual horse named Salerno already taking up Salerno (horse). We have plenty of articles that are "name of breed + horse" when the breeds are not actually called that. See Friesian horse, Arabian horse, Marwari horse, Morgan horse, Shire horse, Standardbred horse and many others, all of which are known by their first name only. There is no problem with where the article is now, and if it were to be moved, it would be to Banker (horse), which I agree is unnecessary, due to the examples I just mentioned. Consensus has been shown by the editors here on this page that the current name is fine, so please abide by that, Una. Dana boomer (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dana, you made my point. Surely somewhere, sometime, a racehorse has been named Banker and sooner or later the page name Banker (horse) will be wanted for an article about that racehorse. --Una Smith (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If those horses are known as Friesian horse, Arabian horse, Marwari horse, Morgan horse, Shire horse, Standardbred horse, then their page names are not inaccurate. However, the primary contributor to this article says this article's page name is inaccurate. Yohmom may not know it, but moving the article is easy: log in, click the move box at the top of the article page, and type the new name. --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Una, I think you are deliberately missing my point. Those breeds I listed are known by their first name only - the Marwari, the Morgan, the Shire, etc. Therefore, having the breed as "Banker horse" is no different from having any of these other articles at their current title. Yohmom has said above that she was basically just asking and has no problem leaving the article as is. I think you are the only one trying to drag this issue out at the moment, and from the other comments here, I'm pretty sure a move request would get shot down in a quick hurry. Again, PLEASE drop it. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

if someone is serious about wanting to move it, it has to made official through move request, and take a survey to get over with this issue. Based on the discussion above, this move is controversial. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to go through WP:RM only if it is controversial. If we can resolve this ourselves, it does not have to go through WP:RM. --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct IF there would be consensus. But when I read the above, there is anything but a consensus for the moment. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The horses on the Rachel Carson sanctuary may not even be related to the others, apart from being horses; they are descendants of domestic horses left there in the 1940's. So, technically, Bankers don't constitute either a breed or a landrace. They are feral horses that live on the Outer Banks. That recommends the page name Banker (feral horse). --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Una this is a one-person crusade on your part. There is zero consensus or support for your suggestions. Let it go. Montanabw^(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop. NOW

Una, you just made MASSIVE edits to this article with NO consensus from anyone, not the lead editor who has been working on this article for months, not from the other FA reviewers who have been carefully crafting this article, sometimes word by word, for many weeks, not from anyone. This is very poor wikiquette, sets a very bad example for the young people working on this project and violates any number of the principles that make wikipedia work. I have reverted your work and I suggest you make no more contributions to this article at all. If you have good ideas, discuss them here and the primary editors can add those that achieve consensus. I see you are also disrupting the article of FoodPuma. Is it your goal to disrupt these students' projects all across wikipedia? I most sincerely want to assume good will and hope that is NOT your intent. I cannot believe you are doing this here. Leave things alone, please. Montanabw^(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Chestnuts on rear legs

The article currently states The callousities known as "chestnuts" are usually lacking on rear legs. Lacking is a weasel word, and ambiguous in this context. Ives, Vickie (2007-02). "Corolla and Shackleford Horse of the Americas Inspection" (PDF). Horse of the Americas. Retrieved 2009-01-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) states:

On both islands most had no rear chestnuts at all, and those we did observe were so tiny as to be hard to find at all. Even front chestnuts were small or even barely detectable.

I will revise the sentence in the article accordingly. --Una Smith (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics

It may be wise to reconsider treating all Banker populations as a single breed. That treatment has led to mashing together studies of separate populations that may not be related. Some of the populations are separated by wide cuts, and where the cuts are not wide they are notorious for rip tides. Corolla (Bodie Island?) horses have been connected with Spanish colonial horses: are the others equally connected? Shackleford Banks horses are the ones without chestnuts on their hind legs: that is quite unusual, but is it true also for the Rachel Carson horses, or for the others? --Una Smith (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found nothing that would suggest that they are not a single breed. Basic definitions describe them as "horses inhabiting the Outer Banks of North Carolina." The HOA report points out more than the obvious similarities between Shackleford and Corolla. Shackleford has yet to be linked by genetic testing (that I know of);however, they exhibit enough of the same traits so that people much smarter than I consider them similar to lump them under the same term. There has been mixing between the Shackleford and Ocracoke herds so they are linked. Corolla links to Shackleford which links to Ocracoke, thus Corolla links to Ocracoke? The issue of the RC horses has already been addressed. I have no idea what rip tides have to do with anything maybe this clarified a bit?--Yohmom (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

EIA on Shackelford

EIA usually is not lethal; the Wikipedia article on it is pretty bad, but does get that right. The Coggins test was a very early commercial antibody test, one of the first for any virus in any host, and for a time there was hope that it would soon lead to eradication of EIA. That has not happened. Details about the virus and the disease are tangents here, so I cut them out. I do have a question though, that is important to this article. Were the horses euthanized based on antibody tests alone? Those tests suggest but do not prove that the animal is a carrier of the virus. Other tests are necessary to determine if the virus itself is present; see HIV test for example. Does the source say how the bodies were disposed of? That may be of interest to many readers. --Una Smith (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

EIA is, for all practical purposes, lethal as it is progressively dehabilitating in many horses, and those who are not killed by opportunistic infections require humane euthanization as the only viable result to avoid suffering. Just because a few individuals can live with it as a chronic condition with minimal effect does not take away from the fact that this disease is one of the most closely regulated conditions, there is a very good reason that horses cannot be transported across state lines without a Coggins. Take this issue elsewhere, Una, the material was sourced and properly referenced.

Loose ends

So I have been trying to satisfy most of the suggestions made the in latest PR and I keep finding myself in the same few ruts.

• Having to not-use/use serial commas consistently is killing what few brain cells I have left. I just hacked away at this one and have been staring at the the article so much that I am no longer processing what is actually on the page. Could someone make sure that I didn't delete necessary commas and that the rest of the serials are finally gone?
• Same thing for the numbers. I think they are spelled out where appropriate (although I'm not too sure what to do with ranges), but I'd like a second pair of eyes before throwing up a check.
• Labeling the horse parts in a photo--is this really needed?
• Domesticated Banker horses/(horses)/(horse breed)/(land race)/(feral horse): I have one sentence on what the breed is "used for" but no real place to put it. It seems pretty random everywhere I try to stick it. Any ideas?

...and a few other items that are marked as not done. Could a get a second opinion on these? Please? --Yohmom (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Will comment at the not dones also. My eyes are so bad (note how often I mess up (, { , and [ getting middle-aged really sucks! Don't get old! LOL!) and thus the numbers and the serial comma thing is all yours! (and here I thought Wiki MOS was the other way around, when did that one change? Oh well). No, there is no need to label horse parts in a photo. Wikilinking should do the job. Equine anatomy is always a handy link. As for the naming, that was a sidetracking thing, don't let it distract you. The name is fine. There's a bigger spat over all this at wikiproject disambiguation that, until resolved, need not be brought into this article, IMHO. If there is a "what they are used for" and it's one sentence long, I'd skip it. If you had a paragraph on how they do in captivity (I think there is such a paragraph in Chincoteague pony) and what sort of things that the owners of adopted animals do with them, that would be charming, but also would need to be footnoted and all that. And, frankly, if it's something like, "they can be tamed and trained as nice trail horses," well, naah. Not needed. At least in my humble and lovable (as always) opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also thought the labeling of a picture was a little overzealous. At this point, I find the naming thing a bit comical (Oh the possibilities!) and my philosophy on that is: if I ignore it, it will go away. My "uses" section for the Banker would be even shorter than the Chincoteague's, if you could imagine how awkward that would look...I should probably get working on the lead...*groan*.--Yohmom (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Survived despite the move

I think this passage Despite the move, about 150 people from the original population of 600 survived the first two months. is obscure (again?!). Part of it could be rephrased 150 people survived the first two months despite the move. This means the survival of the first two months at the new place is unexpected. It further means that the fact that they moved the way they did makes us expect that they should not survive in the new place. But why would the move make them unfit to survive? I guessed that the move in itself changed their condition in a way that made them unfit for survival. That alternative was rejected. Possibly the move made them end up in a place where it is difficult to survive. I find that I don't know and cannot guess. The despite remains enigmatic. The reader needs more hints. --Ettrig (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Done

The first settlement was problematic. Therefore they relocated. But the new place was also dissatisfactory. So after two months in the second location, 3/4 had died there. The remainder then moved again. Is this how it was? Despite the move only 150 survived? --Ettrig (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was an interesting story. --Ettrig (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One that makes me glad that I wasn't born as a 16th century colonist. When I went back to finish it I think I pretty much chunked the above sentence and started from a blank word document. Then Malleus rearranged the new stuff to make it sparkle and shine. :) Good now? --Yohmom (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I make myself clear.  ;-) --Ettrig (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

and or or

There were two expeditions, one run by LVA, one by RG. The expeditions run by LVA or RG can be misinterpreded as both were run by LVA or both were run by RG, but the choice of which one actually did it is left open. If we choose and it can be misinterpreted as both were run by LVA and RG in cooperation. Maybe something like ...were left behind by an exploratory expedition headed by LVA or one by RG.. --Ettrig (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)