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.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 5, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 20, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 30, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 22, 2009 Peer review Reviewed June 14, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept March 29, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Equine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Agriculture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Almost nothing is mentioned about what kind of food horses eat.

I am especially interested in what "wild" (actually feral) horses eat when they are not being fed by humans.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can add this information to the article. 2601:204:F181:9410:8102:6026:28CF:E882 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in the section Horse § Digestion, which also points to an entire article on the subject: Equine nutrition.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2024 and 12 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kennedy1280 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kennedy1280 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Equus robustus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 25 § Equus robustus until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equus caballus robustus is also nominated at the same page. Jay 💬 16:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4,500 (47%) of the 9,600 words on this page are in the "Biology" section. This makes it next to impossible for anyone with a cell phone to see what is in the article. I suggest breaking up the section so there are more level 2 headers (the only levels that show up on a cell phone, immediately after the lead section).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. While in theory I’m all about readability, when I pull up the article on my iPhone, I just tap the little arrow next to the “biology” section and I get all the headers. So personally I’m not sure if this is necessary. But, if it is a potential concern, I’m going to ping @Cullen328: on this,, as he is the go-to guru of cellphone stuff in Wikipedia articles. I’m also going to ping @Ealdgyth:, as she and I are the two remaining editors who worked on this to make it GA in the first place. My main concern is if we bump the level 2 headers to level 1 and the level 3 to level 2, we may be making the article structure even more confusing. Basically, if stuff does need to change, we should workshop it here rather than just go in and slash. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the ping. Although I do about 99% of my reading and editing of Wikipedia on Android smartphones, I use the desktop site (which works fine on smartphones) as opposed to the mobile view which still lacks full functionality after all these years. One of the many advantages of the desktop site is its clearly superior table of contents functionality, which makes it much easier for readers to navigate long articles, zeroing in on the specific content that interests them the most. I had no problem with navigating the structure of the article in desktop mode on my Android phone. I have no experience with iPhones but on Android phones in mobile view mode, there is no visible table of contents showing subsections within sections. So, I can easily go to the Biology section but the only way for me to see the subsections is to scroll through the whole section, which is a bit frustrating. That can be interpreted, I suppose, as an argument for more sections, each with fewer subsections. I interpret it instead as a critique of the shortcomings of the mobile software and just another reason why I use the misnamed desktop site on my phone. Why do they call it a desktop site when it works better on mobile devices than the mobile view does? I do not get paid enough money or free t-shirts to unravel that conundrum but I can report that the WMF has been paying almost no attention to my input about this matter for over ten years. So it goes.

The process did lead me to read most of content of the article, and it is very well done. Thanks for that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my suggestion would be to get rid of the heading "Biology" and bump up each subheading one level. Let me give it a try so we can see what it looks like. We can always revert it, but at least we'll have a version to view. brb...   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, did it. Here's a link to the sample version.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The image shown in the article under "sleep patterns" appears to be AI generated - it looks like there's a brazier or something attached to the back of the standing horse's head, and the fur on the one lying down looks off. Can anyone double check this?

If this is AI generated, is this acceptable for use on Wikipedia? I'm new at editing here so I'm not 100% clear on what's considered acceptable. Thanks ZacharyBuilds (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In WikiCommons, it says the article is "retouched", and shows the original. [1] Looks like there was another horse directly behind the main subject horse which was 'erased', but the rest looks the same. Derivative works are often acceptable. I have no answer for your question about AI-generated images.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "brazier", but the standing horse is wearing a large bell around its neck.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now - I guess I've just never seen a horse with a bell before. I think I used the wrong term to refer to it, but I thought the bell was something like this. [2] ZacharyBuilds (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]