Talk:Horse/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Horse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.141.5 (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail

This article falls short of GA on Wikipedia:Good article criteria 1a, 3, and 4. I do not evaluate items 1b, 2, 5 and 6.

• 1a: Individual sentences are mostly okay (considered in isolation), and the paragraphs mostly have a theme, but beyond that the article is very poor. The structure is weak, transitions are largely absent, and introductory paragraphs often seem to forget this is a wiki encyclopedia. Eg, "cold blooded" has several meanings, including poikilothermic, sluggish, and unflappable, but rather than wikilink to the relevant article, this article spends three sentences on disambiguation.
• 3: The article omits significant aspects of its topic (1a), and goes repeatedly into unnecessary detail.
• 4: The article is loaded with POV re preferred breeds, breed registries, "natural" gaits, temperament, training, management, "require" this and that, etc. Also, there is an excessive quantity of "wow" prose such as The horse's legs and hooves are also unique, interesting structures. Their leg bones are proportioned differently from those of a human. These sentences amount to notes-to-self about what to write about, without the actual writing.

In short, this is not an article in the usual sense. It is more of a list, being little more than a compilation of (overly long) summaries of other Wikipedia articles about some aspect of horses. Some content that belongs in this article is notably absent. For example, a species article normally starts by circumscribing the species and mentioning the most closely related other species, extant and extinct. Then, much of the article should compare and contrast this species to its sister taxa (those other species). Another long section should deal with the natural history of this species. Another should deal with its evolutionary history, and probably should refer to the Deep Time bit only in passing, putting its focus on the evolutionary history of the genus and this species. Then, as this is a domesticated species, a section on its domestication is necessary, followed by a cursory outline of only the most important information about modern breeds, breeding, etc. Stable management, training, uses, and equipment are tangents. Leave out all the many tangents, and permit Wikipedia's excellent category system to help the reader find those tangential articles if so interested. Sections in the article now that belong here are Evolution, Domestication and surviving wild species, and Biology. Biology should be trimmed of a lot of tangential detail better explained in linked articles, and should include the content (key information only) of the sections Gaits and Behavior. The entire Temperament section belongs under Breeds, which should come after Domestication, if at all.

I suggest the following TOC: <verbatim>

   * 1 Taxonomy
   * 2 Evolution
         o 2.1 Wild species surviving into modern times
         o 2.2 Other modern equids
   * 3 Biology
         o 3.1 Anatomy
         o 3.2 Physiology
         o 3.3 Life history
         o 3.4 Behavior
   * 4 Domestication
         o 4.1 The "Four Foundations" theory
         o 4.2 Feral populations
         o 4.3 Human uses
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References

</verbatim>

This article has a long way to go, to reach GA. I hope this review will inspire new enthusiasm sufficient to get it there. A quick fail seems in order, to allow all the time needed until the article is ready to be nominated for another GA review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)