![]() | Jutland horse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article previously called this horse breed cold-blooded. I think the writer means that the horses can withstand cold temperatures, but that term refers to a system which is not autothermosustaining, which is not the same thing. I have deleted the cold-blooded adjective, but have not replaced it. Any suggestions are welcome. Raymondwinn ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If it matters, I learned during some of the work Countercanter did on chestnut (coat) that chestnut is in may ways the simplest and most basic coat color in horses, the most recessive color there is, and biologically created by a genetic mechanism that is equivalent to that which creates blonde or red hair in people. So, given that we are dealing with Scandanavia, it's interesting (maybe even mind-boggling and entering the Twilight Zone?) that even prior to the development of DNA testing, the people were looking for a form of recessive genetics in horses that paralleled common genetics in many of the local people. (and that it's genetic, not simply color, because they discouraged cream genes...?) Wonder if the red dog thing is another genetic parallel? Anyway, it just sort of struck me as interesting. Montanabw (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This article was recently listed as a good article. Its really a start class. Its a 7.5 kb start class article. It fails the GA criteria in that its supposed to be broad in scope. Sure we have a few short articles but this really does not provide a comprehensive, satisfactory coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Some articles on very obscure topics may get away with being short if they are comprehensive. I'm not horse expert but 6 sources indicates lack of research and makes me doubt its comprehensiveness.... See A here. There are a mass of sources which could be used for it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Very strange words Malleus. A good article shouldn't be comprehensive? How can an article be "good" if it is poorly researched and not comprehensive?? "Broad in coverage" is a GA criteria... I've already added to this...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the article now has triple the number of sources compared to the version you passed, all from a mere ten minutes of study.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm in shock at the two proposals I just saw for delisting reviews. (Jutland and that one on Sandy's page.) They are lacking a REVIEW by the delisting proposer! Shouldn't there be some sort of detailed and substantive set of comments to start off the party? To show that this is a worthwhile exercise? If I were GA-Sandy I would just shut this down and tell the proposer he needs to spend a couple hourse reading the article in detail, making a serious set of comments at some level of granularity, like you would get from Sasata or would get in a peer review or just a review review (like here: [1])
And I'm not even trying to defend the articles! They might be subpar, I don't know. And if the would-be delister doesn't know enough about the literature (and is unwilling to spend the time to brush up on the extent of it) then he should NOT propose a delist. He should recognize his handicap of not being able to make a sophisticated criticism and just stay out of it. But if he really wants to delist, he should invest the time that would allow others to see that a delist is needed and also to allow the article writer a better chance to save the article. TCO ( talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Look enough of the angst from you lot. I know a subpar article when I see one. Horse expert or not, 6 sources IS very poor standards for a good article, even if apparently a good article could even use just 2 sources and "pass the criteria". Having done some research into this now it is actually a lot more comprehensive than the length and original 6 sources let on. Luckily I've filled in gaps and tripled the number of sources and I'm now happier with it. Somebody can withdraw this review. I will consider making improvements myself to articles first in future irather than taking straight to review.. I just do not think articles with an extreme lack of sources and evidence of much research should pass GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22jutland+horse%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C47&as_sdtp=on
The Heredity article might be helpful and is free. TCO ( talk) 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No text.
I realize that is a much more notable horse (more written). But maybe if we look at that article, it will help us with where we should add content here? The one that jumps to me is the "use" section at the end (we are missing that). TCO ( talk) 15:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't get google translate to work, but was wondering on this website ( http://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Heste/Avlsforbund/Sider/Avlsforeningen_Den_Jydske_Hest.aspx) we already reference has more info if you click around or is it just the one page. Like if it gives some info on showings, you could get a sentence or two describing frequcnesy or amount (or I guess just "at all") horse showings.
Danish sources would be very welcome.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it has to be a reliable source of course!.. Mottenen perhaps is better placed to find reliable Danish sources... From what I gather the above source you linked appears to be a Danish Agricultural Advisory website. From what I gather it looks like it should meet our sourcing requirements... There is something about the "Landsbrug" which makes it seem like a government source. Probably not, but it looks OK to me I think.. I've done a quick google translate and there is nothing in that source which you haven't already discussed in the article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
1. The horse was mainly used in Denmark. 2. The linked website is a general database for the agricultural society in Denmark (in England you have the National Farmers' Union). The linked article is about the breeding association for the Jutland horse - so it is reliable, though not very informative. 3. I will definitely be able to find much more reliable sources on my local library. I'll return with books and websites. (prefer books) - but right now the time is 20 minutes to midnight here so there's not much I can do. Have patience guys, I will do my best. PS: TCO will you help me reformatting the references? I just need you to make it like Myrrha's and I can handle the rest. (If the main editor doesn't mind our reformatting of course) Thanks Mottenen ( talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For once I agree with Malleus! That's why I myself rarely develop an article beyond GA anymore, there's way too much to do with other articles!! FACs are incredibly demanding I find.... Presumably though the horse project has a list of "core" articles or high importance ones that are priority to develop to GA level.... Best of luck on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. This is CC-by-SA on Flickr. Is horse right horse? We could crop a bit to blow up. http://www.flickr.com/photos/celesteh/2294260939/
2. We should get a picture of that famous statue. There are a bunch on Flickr but all restricted. Could have Mottenen grab one. Or write someone and get a permission to upload (and yeah, I know GA says all pre-free, I'm not concentrating on that, just trying to build the article).
3. If there is anything else to photo, maybe Mottenen could do it. for instance here that webpage (even if not an RS, and I have not given up hope that it's a decent website, looks organized and not like a garage band) might direct us to a main breeder or the like. Mottennen could get pics and maybe that person can refer to RSes (books or articles or pamphlets). TCO ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Is this the right horse?
TCO (
talk)
19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I was surfing the Carlsberg site (had this idea that they might be a source to content). Maybe we could write and ask for image licencing. Or even if they have some RS content.
(they say "high res to download" and it is part of a "press kit" [5] so I excpect they might react favorably to a licence request for CC-by-SA 3.0). Might not even be needed, but I would do to be safe. I can put in the request if you don't know how to. I did it a lot with Painted turtle. It's just a canned email I send, not that much work really. Has lead to good things at times. TCO ( talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Jutland horse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article previously called this horse breed cold-blooded. I think the writer means that the horses can withstand cold temperatures, but that term refers to a system which is not autothermosustaining, which is not the same thing. I have deleted the cold-blooded adjective, but have not replaced it. Any suggestions are welcome. Raymondwinn ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If it matters, I learned during some of the work Countercanter did on chestnut (coat) that chestnut is in may ways the simplest and most basic coat color in horses, the most recessive color there is, and biologically created by a genetic mechanism that is equivalent to that which creates blonde or red hair in people. So, given that we are dealing with Scandanavia, it's interesting (maybe even mind-boggling and entering the Twilight Zone?) that even prior to the development of DNA testing, the people were looking for a form of recessive genetics in horses that paralleled common genetics in many of the local people. (and that it's genetic, not simply color, because they discouraged cream genes...?) Wonder if the red dog thing is another genetic parallel? Anyway, it just sort of struck me as interesting. Montanabw (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This article was recently listed as a good article. Its really a start class. Its a 7.5 kb start class article. It fails the GA criteria in that its supposed to be broad in scope. Sure we have a few short articles but this really does not provide a comprehensive, satisfactory coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Some articles on very obscure topics may get away with being short if they are comprehensive. I'm not horse expert but 6 sources indicates lack of research and makes me doubt its comprehensiveness.... See A here. There are a mass of sources which could be used for it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Very strange words Malleus. A good article shouldn't be comprehensive? How can an article be "good" if it is poorly researched and not comprehensive?? "Broad in coverage" is a GA criteria... I've already added to this...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the article now has triple the number of sources compared to the version you passed, all from a mere ten minutes of study.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm in shock at the two proposals I just saw for delisting reviews. (Jutland and that one on Sandy's page.) They are lacking a REVIEW by the delisting proposer! Shouldn't there be some sort of detailed and substantive set of comments to start off the party? To show that this is a worthwhile exercise? If I were GA-Sandy I would just shut this down and tell the proposer he needs to spend a couple hourse reading the article in detail, making a serious set of comments at some level of granularity, like you would get from Sasata or would get in a peer review or just a review review (like here: [1])
And I'm not even trying to defend the articles! They might be subpar, I don't know. And if the would-be delister doesn't know enough about the literature (and is unwilling to spend the time to brush up on the extent of it) then he should NOT propose a delist. He should recognize his handicap of not being able to make a sophisticated criticism and just stay out of it. But if he really wants to delist, he should invest the time that would allow others to see that a delist is needed and also to allow the article writer a better chance to save the article. TCO ( talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Look enough of the angst from you lot. I know a subpar article when I see one. Horse expert or not, 6 sources IS very poor standards for a good article, even if apparently a good article could even use just 2 sources and "pass the criteria". Having done some research into this now it is actually a lot more comprehensive than the length and original 6 sources let on. Luckily I've filled in gaps and tripled the number of sources and I'm now happier with it. Somebody can withdraw this review. I will consider making improvements myself to articles first in future irather than taking straight to review.. I just do not think articles with an extreme lack of sources and evidence of much research should pass GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22jutland+horse%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C47&as_sdtp=on
The Heredity article might be helpful and is free. TCO ( talk) 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No text.
I realize that is a much more notable horse (more written). But maybe if we look at that article, it will help us with where we should add content here? The one that jumps to me is the "use" section at the end (we are missing that). TCO ( talk) 15:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't get google translate to work, but was wondering on this website ( http://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Heste/Avlsforbund/Sider/Avlsforeningen_Den_Jydske_Hest.aspx) we already reference has more info if you click around or is it just the one page. Like if it gives some info on showings, you could get a sentence or two describing frequcnesy or amount (or I guess just "at all") horse showings.
Danish sources would be very welcome.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it has to be a reliable source of course!.. Mottenen perhaps is better placed to find reliable Danish sources... From what I gather the above source you linked appears to be a Danish Agricultural Advisory website. From what I gather it looks like it should meet our sourcing requirements... There is something about the "Landsbrug" which makes it seem like a government source. Probably not, but it looks OK to me I think.. I've done a quick google translate and there is nothing in that source which you haven't already discussed in the article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
1. The horse was mainly used in Denmark. 2. The linked website is a general database for the agricultural society in Denmark (in England you have the National Farmers' Union). The linked article is about the breeding association for the Jutland horse - so it is reliable, though not very informative. 3. I will definitely be able to find much more reliable sources on my local library. I'll return with books and websites. (prefer books) - but right now the time is 20 minutes to midnight here so there's not much I can do. Have patience guys, I will do my best. PS: TCO will you help me reformatting the references? I just need you to make it like Myrrha's and I can handle the rest. (If the main editor doesn't mind our reformatting of course) Thanks Mottenen ( talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For once I agree with Malleus! That's why I myself rarely develop an article beyond GA anymore, there's way too much to do with other articles!! FACs are incredibly demanding I find.... Presumably though the horse project has a list of "core" articles or high importance ones that are priority to develop to GA level.... Best of luck on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. This is CC-by-SA on Flickr. Is horse right horse? We could crop a bit to blow up. http://www.flickr.com/photos/celesteh/2294260939/
2. We should get a picture of that famous statue. There are a bunch on Flickr but all restricted. Could have Mottenen grab one. Or write someone and get a permission to upload (and yeah, I know GA says all pre-free, I'm not concentrating on that, just trying to build the article).
3. If there is anything else to photo, maybe Mottenen could do it. for instance here that webpage (even if not an RS, and I have not given up hope that it's a decent website, looks organized and not like a garage band) might direct us to a main breeder or the like. Mottennen could get pics and maybe that person can refer to RSes (books or articles or pamphlets). TCO ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Is this the right horse?
TCO (
talk)
19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I was surfing the Carlsberg site (had this idea that they might be a source to content). Maybe we could write and ask for image licencing. Or even if they have some RS content.
(they say "high res to download" and it is part of a "press kit" [5] so I excpect they might react favorably to a licence request for CC-by-SA 3.0). Might not even be needed, but I would do to be safe. I can put in the request if you don't know how to. I did it a lot with Painted turtle. It's just a canned email I send, not that much work really. Has lead to good things at times. TCO ( talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)