Horse edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Closed as discussion is an editing issue which has moved to article talkpage SilkTork *Tea time 09:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC).
This article needs serious work and looking at. The opening para alone has innacuracies such as saying it is a subspecies of a family. Nirame (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I note that this reassessment was started a whole three minutes after the editor starting it first posted to the talk page. It appears that there is a desire by the person starting this to have references in the lead, when those facts are already referenced in the body of the article. There is also a bit of a concern about the first sentence, but I've been trying to work on the concerns as they are brought up without introducing any unsourced information into the article (as Nirame first attempted). While it's certainly not FA status just yet, it's quite well referenced and no other concerns have been brought forward here. I'm more than willing to work on issues, but I need them brought forward, not just "needs serious work". Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- the only info i added was already in the article in the right hand panel and was not questioned in that section. in addition the sentance remains innacurate as the taxonomic family contains the genus and the genus the species the horse is subspecies of. missing out those two parts is very misleading. there are also further problems in text further in that makes a differnt subspecies alltogether indistinct the articles subspecies. Nirame (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please use capitals for the start of sentences? It's very hard to read without those visual clues. And I'm not sure what "there are also further problems in text further in that makes a differnt subspecies alltogether indistinct the articles subspecies" is referring to? Can you be specific on which sentence is wrong? I'm not sure what IS wrong from that statement of yours. Like I said, I'm happy to work with things, but you need to state specifics (Note that I clarified the Prez horse thing that you brought up on the talk page - adding in that Prez Horse is a separate species) so if that was the concern, I hope that my clarification made things better. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nirame was correct with the errors in the article, and I think looking over the article and seeing what needs to be fixed might be proper. I would suggest to make a list of issues, and then fix them. I doubt that there are many, but there is never an objection to improving the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have no objection to fixing errors if they are pointed out - but we could have done that on the talk page also, but we're here and we might as well go ahead with the whole process. I've attempted to further clarify the Prez Horse as separate subspecies issue in the lead, if folks would comment whether that is an improvement? I'm not exactly a taxonomic expert, but I'm willing to work together to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Although there are obviously always things that can be fixed, I'm not really seeing the need for a GAR at this point, and it seems that it was started because of a disagreement over a couple of sentences and referencing in the lead that lasted about 10 minutes before being brought to GAR. Kim, I thought you had already been over all of the taxonomic stuff in the article at one point and given it the go-ahead - guess I was wrong on that. We're thinking of working it up to FAC for later this summer, so a list of anything you think should be changed (or just go ahead and play with it), either here or on the talk page, would be great. You're our main equine taxonomy expert, so welcome back! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: This is probably my fault because I did the revert. This user (Nirame) is a brand new user with a stunning knowledge of categorization, article renaming and disambiguation, for such a new user, and has been driving me nuts for the last 24-48 hours with massive categorization and category changes. I have asked him/her at least three times to discuss the changes with WikiProject Equine and he/she refuses to do so. When this change hit, I just punched the undo button because some of this editor's previous category reassessments weren't correct and they had lost credibility with me. I believe this is a bad faith reassessment request and should be summarily denied. Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Articles can always be improved and as you are wanting to up its status anyway this will hopefully help weed out weaker points. i note the good article status goes back to 2008 so a review isnt inapropriate after that length time. the good article stuff says> Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, < and that was what needed work here and we are still trying to fix. Also please seeWP:AOBF and lets look at things on a case by case basis and if there are differences integrate with refs them or put them on the talk page with refs. Nirame (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nirame, I'm still confused about why you started this GAR. You were apparently upset about one paragraph in the lead. Are there other places in the article that you would like to see things changed? Also, why did you not let the discussion play out on the talk page before going straight to GAR? Bringing an article to GAR over a minutes-long dispute over a few sentences is a rather over the top reaction. If you have other issues with the article, we would love to hear them, but for now, you just keep talking about the same issue (which, I think, has already been fixed). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "if there are differences integrate with refs them or put them on the talk page with refs." Yes, if different high quality reliable sources disagree then we need to point this out in the article. However, if you are suggesting permanently putting the information and refs on the talk page, this is incorrect. Instead, we would put them in a footnote or otherwise keep them on the main article page - the article page is for reading, the talk page is for talking. Also, the knowledge of equine taxonomy, domestication and evolution has changed rapidly over the past two decades, so a high quality reliable source from 1990 in one of these quickly changing fields may quite possibly be meaningless now. Dana boomer (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The differences I was refering to there were in opinion generally for Montanabw meaning puting things back that are in disute by reversion is better done accompanied with supporting refs. But now you bring it up I agree with what you saying about the articles reliable sources potentially being meaningless now. Notes perhaps be taken of the publication years and checks done on how relevant they still are to their subject areas.Nirame (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also i am not saying to permenantly keep refernces on talk pages i was just meaning it might be needed to put them there before going into the main article if the main article is getting reverted lots.Nirame (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not what I meant. You say "if there are differences integrate them with refs". This I would take to mean adding new refs, since what is in the article is sourced (even if occasionally the prose needs to be tweaked). I was cautioning that any new refs that are added need to meet the "high quality reliable sources" criteria required by FAC (since that is where we plan to take the article) as well as be up-to-date. Montana was correct in stating that references are not needed for the majority of the lead. Because of the significant work we have done on this article over the past couple of years (since the GA nomination), all of the refs currently in the article should be up to date with the latest knowledge. If not, they are used to reference statements like "previously, scientists believed that...", which is a correct use of older sources. All I'm asking is that if you wish to integrate new information, provide new sources, and when integrating new sources, please make sure you vet the sources beforehand. Putting proposed new sources on the talk page is a good idea - it is what we always suggest, since this makes it easier to discuss them. Also, I'm still waiting for you to provide a listing of more issues, since a brief dispute over one paragraph does not warrant a GAR. Dana boomer (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nirame, I'm out of this particular discussion. Several people have busted our butts on this article for years, first to get it to GA, then to make it better yet, and now to get it ready for FA. If you have an issue with me, take it to my talk page (or yours) and we can discuss. What you are doing here is not in the least helpful and is hurting a bunch of other people -- seems a petty way to behave just because I reverted you. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not what I meant. You say "if there are differences integrate them with refs". This I would take to mean adding new refs, since what is in the article is sourced (even if occasionally the prose needs to be tweaked). I was cautioning that any new refs that are added need to meet the "high quality reliable sources" criteria required by FAC (since that is where we plan to take the article) as well as be up-to-date. Montana was correct in stating that references are not needed for the majority of the lead. Because of the significant work we have done on this article over the past couple of years (since the GA nomination), all of the refs currently in the article should be up to date with the latest knowledge. If not, they are used to reference statements like "previously, scientists believed that...", which is a correct use of older sources. All I'm asking is that if you wish to integrate new information, provide new sources, and when integrating new sources, please make sure you vet the sources beforehand. Putting proposed new sources on the talk page is a good idea - it is what we always suggest, since this makes it easier to discuss them. Also, I'm still waiting for you to provide a listing of more issues, since a brief dispute over one paragraph does not warrant a GAR. Dana boomer (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also i am not saying to permenantly keep refernces on talk pages i was just meaning it might be needed to put them there before going into the main article if the main article is getting reverted lots.Nirame (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The differences I was refering to there were in opinion generally for Montanabw meaning puting things back that are in disute by reversion is better done accompanied with supporting refs. But now you bring it up I agree with what you saying about the articles reliable sources potentially being meaningless now. Notes perhaps be taken of the publication years and checks done on how relevant they still are to their subject areas.Nirame (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nirame, I'm still confused about why you started this GAR. You were apparently upset about one paragraph in the lead. Are there other places in the article that you would like to see things changed? Also, why did you not let the discussion play out on the talk page before going straight to GAR? Bringing an article to GAR over a minutes-long dispute over a few sentences is a rather over the top reaction. If you have other issues with the article, we would love to hear them, but for now, you just keep talking about the same issue (which, I think, has already been fixed). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "if there are differences integrate with refs them or put them on the talk page with refs." Yes, if different high quality reliable sources disagree then we need to point this out in the article. However, if you are suggesting permanently putting the information and refs on the talk page, this is incorrect. Instead, we would put them in a footnote or otherwise keep them on the main article page - the article page is for reading, the talk page is for talking. Also, the knowledge of equine taxonomy, domestication and evolution has changed rapidly over the past two decades, so a high quality reliable source from 1990 in one of these quickly changing fields may quite possibly be meaningless now. Dana boomer (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Can you move to close this, then, please? Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can we have a clear statement that this is a GAR issue by pointing out which of the criteria the article doesn't meet, or a clear statement that this is now simply an editing issue which has moved to the article talkpage, in which case I will close. SilkTork *Tea time 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi i think it would still be an issue under:
- A good article is—
- 1.Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear and concise,
- and
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]
- ^as the content clarity is still to be sorted and the stability thing would come up as things are sorted outNirame (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
OK! I think " this IS now simply an editing issue which has moved to the article talkpage." Nirame began it though, so hopefully he/she will agree. Montanabw(talk) 06:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Except that there would be NO editing dispute except that Nirame started one! The issue is being thoroughly discussed on the talk page, and as far as I can see, he issues are trivial and not worthy of a GA review. The issues Nirame raises are appropriate for consideration before we put the article up for FA, which we are about to do, but Nirame, who is a relatively new user, doesn't seem to understand that you don't use GA review to do an FA peer review. And you most certainly do NOT request a GA review because you are having a snit fit over being reverted. Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status" Given the issues of clarity in the article that is why i started that and those issues are still there. The issues arent trivial the phrasing is at times ver misleading.Nirame (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- And since this has been closed by SilkTork, we can now take this back to the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status" Given the issues of clarity in the article that is why i started that and those issues are still there. The issues arent trivial the phrasing is at times ver misleading.Nirame (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)