Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will make a detailed study of the article in the next couple of days. My first impression is of a well-written article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I believe the article was easily GA class at the time first nominated, and the lead editor, Dana, has made some nice improvements since. But as no article is ever perfect, ;-) we will still welcome additional constructive comments and suggestions, and are happy to answer any questions you may have. Be aware that the previous GA fail of this article was done by a now-blocked sockpuppet who had been in disputes with me in the past and had an active dispute with me on an unrelated article at the time. I feel bad that the article was failed, as it was due to a personality issue, not the article itself (IMHO), so if I can be of any service in helping this round go more smoothly, I hope to be of help in any way possible!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

First reading

Here are some things I noticed on reading through the article. Some of them are more matters of opinion rather than errors, so feel free to take no action where you think my suggestions are wrong.

• Where you mention the "Irish government", I think both words should be capitalised.

• MOS on capitalization in sentence case says otherwise (this week), but if you want to put it in caps, I won't object. (I am really tired of the capitalization wars on the MOS boards and so have no position on the matter). --Montanabw (MTBW)

• "Possibly descending from the Irish Hobby horse," - I would have thought "descended" would be better. And should the word "horse" be capitalised?

• Fixed "descended," The "Irish Hobby" is the breed, there actually is an MOS spat over when to use capitalization of "horse" in breed names, which we are, at the moment, just going along with whatever the "MOS-gods" want this week, which is currently lower sentence case. The word "horse" is not integral to the breed name, except when clarifying that it's a horse we are talking about, so I think lower case is OK. However, we can make it caps if you wish. --MTBW

• " In 1994, a local man found and genetically tested a herd of 20 ponies that he used as the foundation stock for its rebuilding." - It is unclear what the "its" refers to, is it the herd or the breed?

• Made into two sentences and clarified. --MTBW

• " They are known by enthusiasts for strength, intelligence and athleticism, ..." - Again, it is a bit unclear what "they" refers to.

• Clarified, let me know if this can be better worded. --MTBW

• "The Kerry Bog Pony may have played a part in the development of the Gypsy Vanner horse (also known as the Irish Cob), in addition to other breeds." - This is somewhat ambiguous. Did KBP contribute to "other breeds" or did "other breeds" also contribute to GV?

• The GV is a "mutt" the KBP is one of many, clarified. --MTBW

• The first paragraph of the History section needs to be either all in the singular or in the plural. At the moment it is a bit of both.

Couldn't quite get the whole paragraph all one or the other, but at least fixed the sentences and did some rephrasing. Is it better now? --MTBW

• "Some were trained to harness and used to pull carts" - I would suggest you change this to "Some were trained to work in harness ... "

Fixed --MTBW

• " ... during the Peninsular Wars, and used them in the wars as pack animals;" - Too many "wars".

• The link title is now singular, so changed the sentence a bit. Better now? --MTBW

• " ... as farmers who previously utilized them died or immigrated." - I think you mean "emigrated".

• Fixed -- MTBW

• "In 1995, he had DNA testing performed on the ponies, " - I think this could be better expressed.

• Will look at sources to see how this can be rephrased and will get back to you. -- MTBW Follow up: reworded, let me know if this is better. --MTBW

• " ... and the first ponies were imported to the US in 2003" - I think this should be "exported".

• Fixed and clarified for future readers. -- MTBW

• " ... and houses part of the existent Kerry Bog Pony population." - I think this should be "existing".

• Fixed --MTBW

• "Connemara pony" - should this be capitalised? After all, you have capitalized "Kerry Bog Pony" throughout the article.

• Same MOS spat noted above. We clearly must include "Pony" in the name, lest it be confused with a swamp, but a "Connemara", arguably, can stand alone, as the modifier is implied, or so they tell me. Again, if you'd like it in caps, I'm fine with it, but the MOS drive-bus often come through and change it all back again. (Not frustrated at you, just frustrated at this constant back and forth on title case capitalization, sigh) --MTBW

That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth for your comments. Please let me know if phrasing can be further improved, and as far as the capitalization thing, feel free to go in there and tweak that as you see fit. I defer to the reviewer on this, but fully anticipate that whichever way we go, the MOS patrol will change it back and forth about every six months from now until the end of time...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with most of your changes and your rationale on capitalizing names. The only exception is the Irish Government, which I would capitalise, whereas I would not capitalise the government of Ireland. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, capitalized "Government." IF the MOSCOPs complain, it's their problem!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the sentence - "In 1995, he had DNA testing performed on the ponies, which defined unique genetic markers for the breed," which seems to me to read awkwardly. I don't have access to the sources for this statement but how would this be - "In 1995, unique genetic markers were established for the breed following DNA testing." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't have access to Storey, Dana has that book, but the source I have access to (footnote 7 - from which I derived my rewrite) states as follows: "Weatherby’s Ireland, DNA Laboratories confirmed unique breedmarkers of the Kerry Bog Pony and ponies were tested to identify foundation stock to replenish the breed." One of the underlying studies is this one, cited elsewhere in the article, and it's extremely technical. But basically, it appears that there are three things going on; one is the 1994-5 testing of Flashy Fox and the other ponies that identified their unique blood type (which they could do prior to the sequencing of the entire horse genome in 2009. Second, there have been multiple DNA studies since the 1990s where unique genetic markers have been found in the KBP generally particularly some unique MtDNA haplotypes,, and today DNA is used to identify individual animals and to verify parentage. see also. I don't want to get into WP:SYNTH territory and exceed the sources. How does something like this sound? In 1994, Mulvihill had genetic testing performed on his pony herd,(site Storey) which showed them to be a unique breed.(Cite Kerry Bog VIllage) He used these animals as his foundation bloodstock to rebuild the breed. (cite Storey) Subsequent DNA studies showed unique genetic markers for the breed,( citation to KBP soc) and revealed...Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Something along those lines should be fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

May be a couple days before I get back to this, but I'll take a whack at it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, tweaked. Added a new source and rephrased some stuff (BTW, someone really should create an article on the Kerry Bog Village; it looks like it's extremely cool!) Have I addressed all concerns now? :) Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is of a satisfactory standard
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article complies with the MOS
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is adequately sourced
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This criterion is met
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article deals well with the subject
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This criterion is met
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This criterion is met
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No problem
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriate and relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	I have considered the matters of concern that were raised in the previous GA review and consider that they have either been satisfactorily addressed or were insubstantial and that this article now meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review, Cwmhiraeth! Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)