Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horse Protection Act of 1970/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Horse Protection Act of 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC) and User:Montanabw[reply]
Over the past few months, Montanabw and I have been working to put this article together, taking it from a very short stub to the comprehensive state in which it currently stands. This law, now over 40 years old, has not been completely successful at preventing abuse in certain portions of the horse industry, but it has helped significantly. We think we have portrayed an unbiased look at the successes and failures of this law, as well as the history behind it. We look forward to your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Dana boomer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport by Cwmhiraeth on prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- " It is illegal to show a horse or enter it at a horse show, auction, sell, offer for sale, or any transport a horse for any of these purposes if it has been sored." - This sentence is a bit grammatically confused.
- (Smiles) So is the statute. We are trying to simplify the statute, yet mirror the statutory language without going too far off the tracks and saying something that's not there. If you have any suggestions how to further translate legalese into English, we are all ears! --Montanabw
- How about "It is illegal to show a horse or enter it at a horse show, to auction, sell, offer for sale, or transport a horse for any of these purposes if it has been sored."
- (Smiles) So is the statute. We are trying to simplify the statute, yet mirror the statutory language without going too far off the tracks and saying something that's not there. If you have any suggestions how to further translate legalese into English, we are all ears! --Montanabw
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ==Montanabw
- " While Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking horses ..." - This needs consistency in capitalisation.
- Done. ==Montanabw
You use "HPA" in the article but do not define it?- Fixed by adding acronym at first mention. Does that work? --Montanabw
"For the first decades of Act, " - This needs a definite article.- Fixed. --Montanabw
Consistency is needed in whether or not a capital letter should be used for the act.- Fixed, as no preference expressed, I made it all caps, consistent with usage in legal writing. --Montanabw
"Pressure shoeing" is used in the article but not explained.- For a written definition, we have a RS/OR concern and your views on how to resolve it are welcomed! Basically, pressure shoeing is the "...any tack, nail, screw,... and the ..."any other substance or device.. (in this case, trimming and shoeing techniques) parts in the statute, but the statute doesn't say "pressure shoeing" explicitly. ( and neither does the CFR) There's a good RS here on the AAEP protocol for detecting it, but it's really technical and lacks a simple "pressure shoeing is..." definition. So we can look to other examples, and this page explains a bunch of the methods pretty well. this also explains it, and this one is in plain English Would any (or all) of these last three sources work for you as a RS? If so, we can use that definition, somehow. Please advise. --Montanabw
- I would accept that the American Farriers Journal is a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, added new bit (and rearranged some of what was there) to "Implementation" section. Does tht work? --Montanabw
- I would accept that the American Farriers Journal is a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For a written definition, we have a RS/OR concern and your views on how to resolve it are welcomed! Basically, pressure shoeing is the "...any tack, nail, screw,... and the ..."any other substance or device.. (in this case, trimming and shoeing techniques) parts in the statute, but the statute doesn't say "pressure shoeing" explicitly. ( and neither does the CFR) There's a good RS here on the AAEP protocol for detecting it, but it's really technical and lacks a simple "pressure shoeing is..." definition. So we can look to other examples, and this page explains a bunch of the methods pretty well. this also explains it, and this one is in plain English Would any (or all) of these last three sources work for you as a RS? If so, we can use that definition, somehow. Please advise. --Montanabw
"... including the need for inspectors to show knowledge of soreness before inspection; in this case, the court decided they did not." - Which case is this referring to?- Fixed. Had to redo that bit, it wasn't worded properly in the first place, went back to source material and fixed it to say what was actually stated there. --Montanabw
The section heading "Proposed amendment" should be in the plural.- Fixed. --Montanabw
What is the Tennessee Walking Horse industry?- Everything about it that makes money; breeding, showing, auctions, etc. -- just like horse industry, automobile industry, textile industry, etc... ? Unclear as to concern?? --Montanabw
- No particular concern, just disappointed that the breed has become an industry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Preaching to the choir there, $$$ is part of the problem and part of the soring issue. (sigh) --Montanabw
- No particular concern, just disappointed that the breed has become an industry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything about it that makes money; breeding, showing, auctions, etc. -- just like horse industry, automobile industry, textile industry, etc... ? Unclear as to concern?? --Montanabw
Why are abbreviations like TWHBEA given when the entity to which they refer only appears once in the article?- May have been in more than once in previous versions and might appear twice as time goes on, don't want to forget about it. Prefer to leave it that way unless you think it's a real issue? No prob to remove it if it is, but horse industry in general understands TWHBEA pretty fast, sometimes faster than the spelled out version --Montanabw
Thanks for the review Cwmhiraeth! Please let us know what else we can work on or your further thoughts on the article. Glad to see you here for the review! Montanabw(talk) 22:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy with your amendments and have changed my Comments to Support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images but no spotchecks
- Image licensing looks good
- FN4, 12, 13, 21: should use endash
- I"m going to let Dana do the techie formatting stuff because she's better at it than I am. I have no idea which way they want this done this week :-P --Montanabw
- FN19: accessdate?
- Re-verified today, fixed (note, due to new material, this is now FN 20)--Montanabw
- FN25: should this publication be italicized?
- Probably, but the template wasn't cooperating. I did it manually. Does that work? --Montanabw
- Case: what pages does this cover in the journal? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes 12 and 13 cite the specific pages referenced in the journal. I added the full law review citation to the main source, though I can't figure out how to make the template work now. (It's a legal citation). So it's FIXED, I think. --Montanabw
Thank you, Nikki, for the review! I did everything but the endash bit, I'm letting someone who does more formatting stuff take that one. Montanabw(talk) 17:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - all my concerns have been addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a member of WP:EQUINE but I've not edited this article at all - it's not really an interest of mine. I'm also a Wikicup participant.
- Lead:
"Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to a horse's front feet or forelegs, making it pick those feet up in an exaggerated manner. High action is desired in..." You don't define "high action" - although it may be clear to some readers from the context, it'd probably be better to define the term. Maybe "Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to a horse's front feet or forelegs, making it pick those feet up in an exaggerated manner, a style of movement known as "high action". High action is desired in..."- reworded lede. See if that's better. --Montanabw
- Background:
"Soring began in the 1950s with gaited horse trainers who were looking to improve their chances of winning in the show ring." Why do the piped link here to use jargon when you could just say "of winning at horse shows."?- Fixed--Montanabw
"High action" or "high-action"? And definition needed as pointed out above.- Hyphens destroyed. --Montanabw
Can we get a short explanation for "gaited breeds" in this first paragraph, rather than relying on the link?- Would prefer not to, as it's not a simple explanation. (From list of gaited horse breeds def: "Gaited horses are horse breeds that have selective breeding for natural gaited tendencies, that is, the ability to perform one of the smooth-to-ride, intermediate speed, four-beat horse gaits, collectively referred to as ambling gaits.") I am very concerned that excess definitions will mess up the flow of the article, that's what wikilinks are for. That said, do you have a proposed way to word this that would not be klunky and "kiddies, a stallion is a boy horse" in tone?? --Montanabw
- A footnote would work, it doesn't have to be in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I can do that, I don't see the need if we have the wikilink, but whatever. Give me about 20 min to fix and make a note, then let me know if it meets with your approval. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A wikilink takes the reader away from your article, and they may not return. For something so central to the concept of the article, it should be explained here at this article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I can do that, I don't see the need if we have the wikilink, but whatever. Give me about 20 min to fix and make a note, then let me know if it meets with your approval. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote would work, it doesn't have to be in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would prefer not to, as it's not a simple explanation. (From list of gaited horse breeds def: "Gaited horses are horse breeds that have selective breeding for natural gaited tendencies, that is, the ability to perform one of the smooth-to-ride, intermediate speed, four-beat horse gaits, collectively referred to as ambling gaits.") I am very concerned that excess definitions will mess up the flow of the article, that's what wikilinks are for. That said, do you have a proposed way to word this that would not be klunky and "kiddies, a stallion is a boy horse" in tone?? --Montanabw
Link for "American Horse Protection Association"?- Don't think there's an article on wiki, search came up empty. Should we do a redlink? --Montanabw
- Is there enough to do an article on it eventually? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Beats me and I can't say I'd be the one to do it. Is this an issue?? Just tell us what you want here. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there enough to do an article on it eventually? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think there's an article on wiki, search came up empty. Should we do a redlink? --Montanabw
"In 1969, Senator Joseph Tydings (D-MD) " non-Americans aren't going to understand the "(D-MD)" bit...- Hmm, it's common across hundreds of politician articles and newspapers, first sentence of his article explains it...? I suppose we can just cut it here, does that work? --Montanabw
- That works. What party and state he was from doesn't really have much bearing on this subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we cut it in the background section, we need to cut it in the Proposed amendments section too... Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in that amendment context, the state and party is relevant, as it's a bipartisan effort from the heart of Walking Horse country, so I expanded that bit instead and wikilinked the parties. Will that work? Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it's common across hundreds of politician articles and newspapers, first sentence of his article explains it...? I suppose we can just cut it here, does that work? --Montanabw
"leading to the passing of the Horse Protection Act in 1970.[2] The law was amended in 1976." Choppy little sentence there - suggest "leading to the passing of the Horse Protection Act in 1970,[2] later amended in 1976."- Reworded slightly, will that work? --Montanabw
- Contents:
"§1821" - non-lawyers aren't going to understand that funky symbol...- I used the word "section" the first time and then § the rest of the time. --Montanabw
- Actually, I was looking for something like "Section (§) ..." which then instructs the reader as to what it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did that. Is it OK now? Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was looking for something like "Section (§) ..." which then instructs the reader as to what it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the word "section" the first time and then § the rest of the time. --Montanabw
"which may be civil or criminal" can we link to something that defines the differences between these two types of punishments?- Wikilinked. --Montanabw
"§1830 is currently reserved" HUH?- Someone will undoubtably ask why we have no § 1830 if we just jump from 1829 to 1831. It's empty. I added "...for future use>" That work? --Montanabw
- Implementation:
"Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see the horses." shouldn't this be "see their horses"?- OK, fixed. --Montanabw
I have a concern with the implication of this sentence "Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see their horses." One of the sources (the second one) for this statement goes on to point out that one reason the exhibitors gave for not showing up was that they feel the USDA inspectors are inconsistent" and that it's persecution of the gaited horse community. To be NPOV the other side should be presented, instead by just stating that they exhibitors don't show up, it's not presenting their side of the situation.- I see your point, but I'm wary of going down a rabbit hole or a WP:UNDUE concern ... Seriously, how many paragraphs should we add? There's the "wur bein' pursecuted by the evil guvmint" excuse, there's the "we can police ourselves" excuse, there's the "we don't do it" excuse, there's the "guvmint inspectors disqualify us for a scratch" excuse, there's the "guvmint inspectors are ignorant" excuse, there's the "this will cost us jobs in the industry" excuse, the "it doesn't really hurt the horses" excuse I mean, it goes on and on ... I suppose we could add must the "inconsistent and persecution" reason, but then we'd also need to add the FOSH analysis that USDA inspectors are quite competent -- There's at least a paragraph here... If you see this as a big deal, we can work on it some, but to me it's kind of like holocaust denial. I am open to discussion, however, don't get me wrong... --Montanabw
- To me the competitors are just trying to make themselves look better. They're using excuses to cover up the fact that they're abusing their horses, which has been done since this law was put into place. For one source with competitors saying the inspectors are incompetent, we can provide a dozen with outside observers and even former violators of the law saying that they aren't. If competitors weren't hurting their horses, it wouldn't be necessary for the big equine vet associations to be pushing for more stringent standards and laws. Personally, I think that the competitors' opinions fall somewhere in the neighborhood of a fringe theory. Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I think they are slimeballs too, but that doesn't mean they are "fringe" and shouldn't have their side mentioned at least. We would say what excuse an accused murderer gives, the same would hold true here. I don't think it needs elaborate, but something like "Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see their horses, with some exhibitors claiming that the APHIS inspectors are inconsistent." Newspaper articles feel that they should mention the excuses, so that tells me it's not fringe. When editors feel strongly about something (such as soring, which I know all three of us despise) it behooves us to work extra hard to make sure what we're putting in is NPOV. If it was a fringe behavior, it wouldn't be impacting shows this much and making the newspapers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bit of their view, which was noted in one of the sources. see this diff for the change. I'd think it sufficient without going into a lot of unnecessary politics and detail. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I think they are slimeballs too, but that doesn't mean they are "fringe" and shouldn't have their side mentioned at least. We would say what excuse an accused murderer gives, the same would hold true here. I don't think it needs elaborate, but something like "Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see their horses, with some exhibitors claiming that the APHIS inspectors are inconsistent." Newspaper articles feel that they should mention the excuses, so that tells me it's not fringe. When editors feel strongly about something (such as soring, which I know all three of us despise) it behooves us to work extra hard to make sure what we're putting in is NPOV. If it was a fringe behavior, it wouldn't be impacting shows this much and making the newspapers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me the competitors are just trying to make themselves look better. They're using excuses to cover up the fact that they're abusing their horses, which has been done since this law was put into place. For one source with competitors saying the inspectors are incompetent, we can provide a dozen with outside observers and even former violators of the law saying that they aren't. If competitors weren't hurting their horses, it wouldn't be necessary for the big equine vet associations to be pushing for more stringent standards and laws. Personally, I think that the competitors' opinions fall somewhere in the neighborhood of a fringe theory. Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but I'm wary of going down a rabbit hole or a WP:UNDUE concern ... Seriously, how many paragraphs should we add? There's the "wur bein' pursecuted by the evil guvmint" excuse, there's the "we can police ourselves" excuse, there's the "we don't do it" excuse, there's the "guvmint inspectors disqualify us for a scratch" excuse, there's the "guvmint inspectors are ignorant" excuse, there's the "this will cost us jobs in the industry" excuse, the "it doesn't really hurt the horses" excuse I mean, it goes on and on ... I suppose we could add must the "inconsistent and persecution" reason, but then we'd also need to add the FOSH analysis that USDA inspectors are quite competent -- There's at least a paragraph here... If you see this as a big deal, we can work on it some, but to me it's kind of like holocaust denial. I am open to discussion, however, don't get me wrong... --Montanabw
Consistency - in the lead you do "Horse Protection Act of 1970 (HPA)", "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)" and "United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)" which is correct. However, the body of the article, you do the "United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)" for the USDA but do NOT do the abbreviation thing again with either APHIS or HPA... all or none for this in the body as well as the lead. Need to treat these all consistently.- Killed the second time we said "United States Department of Agriculture" --Montanabw
- Impact:
"The largest US association" - haven't defined US and it's generally "U.S." or "U. S." in the states. For that matter, doesn't American English do "U.S.D.A" or "H.P.A."?- Fixed U.S. to add periods, but otherwise, no not really, Acronyms in modern usage usually omit periods. Definitely when discussing federal agencies. (example) --Montanabw
- Spotchecks:
- I checked the use of the Womach source, the Patton source, and the Tennessean newspaper source for footnote 26. All were good.
- Overall looks pretty good, but some jargony spots and spots that would be difficult for a non-American to understand. Once these are cleaned up, I should have no difficulty supporting. 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Ealdgyth, I think I hit most of your concerns, though I couple I'm not sure if we really have a non-klunky solution and am open to further discussion on the matter. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I ran the dash-fixing tool on the article, since I saw a few MoS breaches that it was able to handle. Otherwise, I have no complaints about the article and it appears to meet FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Giants! 21:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Delegate comments
- Caption in lead image: I assume that "multiple pads, extra nails placed in pads to add weight to the foot, possibly pressure on the sole, and band across hoof to hold it all on" all describe "stack", so I'd have thought that there should be an "and" rather than a comma between "shoe" and "stacks".
- Fixed. --Montanabw
- Just to confirm, is the act effectively to prevent soring and nothing else? That's the impression I get from the wording of the first sentence so fine if that's correct but if there's any more to the act I'd expect it to say up front that soring is one of (or the major practice) that it outlaws, not the only one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but soring is accomplished in multiple ways through both mechanical and chemical methods. Does that help? Montanabw(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but soring is accomplished in multiple ways through both mechanical and chemical methods. Does that help? Montanabw(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.