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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reveiw

Nice article that clearly explains the breed. Well illustrated. Just a few quibbles.

lede

• "The breed developed physical characteristics, including a low weight to height ration and unusual footfall pattern, to help them move on the soft ground of the peat bogs." - this statement implies that evolution is Lamarckism. - perhaps say "which increased their ability to move on the soft ground ... (or some such).

  This is Dana's lead edit article, so other than fixing a typo in this section, I will wait for her to fix or comment but I would ask you to clarify; we are talking here not about evolution but about selective breeding of a "benign neglect" sort, that which is basically landrace change, not evolution. Would saying "The breed developed landrace physical characteristics" be clearer? --Montanabw

reply

• then it should say "the breed was developed (or bred) to emphasize the characteristics of low weight etc. ... or something to indicate that the characteristics were intentionally bred rather than evolving (evolution) on their own, without human intervention. Landrace sounds closer to evolution - like natural selection which does not aim for a specific goal like size or foot type etc. Perhaps this can be clarified. You're saying that before humans were involved, the "breed" developed these characteristics? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(moved long distracting comment to Talk:Kerry Bog Pony#moved long distracting comment from GA1 to here)

(returning comments since Dana boomer approves of them)

• Thanks for clarifying; I think I should defer to Dana to make the needed refinements in phrasing on this article, as she is the one with access to the source material. For your own background understanding, what happens with many of these "landrace" breeds is that they're shaped buy both environment AND human intention; i.e. humans select for the animals best suited to their needs in a given place, ignoring or culling unsuitable animals, but the climate, geography, etc. of the place also weed out weaker animals. BUT the other piece is that people brought horses to weird places (like bogs -- or deserts or jungles) where any sensible wild horse would never bother going, so that too was a human influence on what otherwise looks a lot like natural selection; the breed had to, somehow, adapt to an odd environment to be able to serve human needs. Horse domestication is a really complex issue, see History of horse domestication theories - as, basically, Y-DNA studies suggest that there were extremely few male animals originally domesticated, and their descendants were crossed on different populations of wild mares as domestication spread. So, for example, the ancient ancestors of most of these British Isles/Irish feral and semi-feral pony breeds were probably already small, fuzzy creatures adapted to cold, damp weather when domesticated horses arrived, the crossing of calmer horses with good dispositions on the native animals created a pony that was different from the wild ancestor in that it would cooperate with humans (as opposed to the still-wild Przewalski's horse, which is still prone to kick the shit out of people to this day) and meet their needs for a working animal in some weird place totally unsuitable for horses, yet because they lived in a semi-feral state of indifferent human care, they also kept their adapted characteristics and even developed new traits. Does that make sense? And is it adaptation, natural selection or artificial selection? Or all of the above? (Sorry to geek out on you, I happen to find the overall topic rather fascinating) Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

• "possibly another adaptation of living on peat bogs" - again implies, IMO, that evolution is not random but rather moves an organism to adaptation to a specific environment.

  And again, we aren't talking about evolution, but about breed adaptation, same stuff that made domestic dogs into everything from chihuahuas to Great Danes. (smile). So can you suggest ways we can be clearer about this? --Montanabw

reply

• then again I suggest making it clear that these characteristics that are intentionally bred into the animal (as dogs are intentionally bred to have different characteristics) rather than saying "possibly another adaptation of living on peat bogs" - adaptation - "in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection", i.e. evolution - unless you are saying this happened before humans were around. Dogs for the most part didn't become different breeds through adaptation but were selectively bred for specific characteristics. Natural variations in dogs would have occurred through natural selection before human's came into the picture. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As above, but I'm a little concerned that we don't venture into WP:OR territory, as it's a chicken or egg question. I wonder about the differences in dogs too, such as the Husky (arctic) versus the Saluki (desert). What was adaptation and what was human-caused? I mean, Chihuahuas, yes, humans really went to work to make something that small and unique, but the working animals -- a combination of environment and human need again. Cannot really say pure artificial selection OR natural selection, it's a combo. Curious what studies out there in general on this? Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I think you are venturing into OR. Please link to breed adaption or some sourced clarification that distinguishes adaption as in natural selection from your use of it, and also clarify in the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "The ponies were discovered by the cavalry in 1804" - hadn't they already been "discovered"? - perhaps another word - or just say they were used during the wars by the cavalry (which cavalry?) - or am I wrong?

  Reworded (if Dana is OK with change). Better? --Montanabw

• "Between 1995 and 2012, Flashy Fox has sired over 140 foals, and has played a significant role in repopulating the breed." - perhaps fit this info into the chronological order of the section. Or put into parentheses?

  Leaving that one for Dana. Generally, I personally hate using parenthetical comments if they can be avoided, but that's just me. --Montanabw

  I'm really not a fan of parentheticals. However, I don't really see a way that this could be fit in strictly chronologically, because it covers such as large period of time. Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• Don't quite understand the format of the infobox after "Breeding standards". Co-Operative Society of Ireland has no breeding standards? So should it be listed?

  We link the the registry's breed standards page because they usually are long and too extensive for an info box -- and sometimes even for the article's characteristics section. It's a bit clunky, but it's an issue for the infobox, not this article. ;-) (smile) --Montanabw

  No, the "Kerry Bog Pony Co-Operative Society of Ireland" is all one registry, and the breed standards are linked. It's not "Kerry Bog Pony" and "Co-Operative Society of Ireland". Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

What are you saying "no" to? Montanabw? or me? This review is quickly becoming confusing. I am considering failing and give you a chance for another reviewer. I really don't want to get into an intense discussion over evolution or be confronted with more long musings from Montanabw. Needn't wait the seven days. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to reply to you, but apparently got the spacing wrong. Your habit of outdenting replies is making the review rather difficult to read and reply to, especially when in the edit window. Not sure why you would consider failing it - there is nothing but good-natured discussion here, and I don't see how the long comment from Montana was so distracting that it needed to be moved to the talk page - I have seen GA reviews far longer that go much further off topic. In any case, I have attempted to rectify all of your concerns above - I really don't see the major problem with the initial wording (they were not selectively bred by humans for bog-friendly characteristics, they developed those while living in a feral state in the bogs), but have changed it anyway, because it's not a big deal. I hope you reconsider your decision to fail the article - it seems rather silly for the article to have a permanent "failed" notation over something so minor. Dana boomer (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, good job! (Will put on hold for seven days while you respond.) MathewTownsend (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

reply

ok, that's your opinion and of course you are free to have it. However, I have mine also and this review has become unpleasant for me as the reviewer. I don't consider the confusion over adaption minor at all but major. I dislike the confusion caused by Montanabw's lengthy and distracting comments which I removed to the talk page but have now returned to this page. That you see no problem with them isn't the point. I'm sorry that you can't have any understanding of my problem with what went on, but what seems like no big deal to you is a big deal to me because it's tiring. I like reviews to be straight forward. I wouldn't have chosen to review this article if I knew she would be involved.

I will read it through and if it's ok now I will pass it. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer comment on this article, as I tried to be helpful, but the reviewer has just now removed my comments to the article talk and there basically told me that I am stupid. I do not wish this GA to be derailed because the reviewer did not appreciate my attempts to explain an issue. This article also should not be failed out of spite because the reviewer dislikes me due to a previous dispute, as I am not a significant editor on this particular article. However, it is my view that if this reviewer cannot separate my comments from the review, then it would be wrong to fail the article; the reviewer simply should graciously decline further review of this article with neither a pass nor a fail, refer it to a different reviewer, and allow someone else to examine it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you don't understand how GA works. It's not possible to "graciously decline further review of this article with neither a pass nor a fail, refer it to a different reviewer, and allow someone else to examine it." If I want out I must fail it. And at this point, I do want out. Before you posted this, I was ready to continue. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually possible to do that. You just post on the GAN talk page that you wish to withdraw from reviewing the article, and ask that another editor take over the review. This generally gets a good response. However, again, I see nothing in Montana's post above that is impolite, incorrect or combative, and she has stated her intent to no longer comment at this review, so I'm still confused as to where the problem lies? Mathew, really, GA reviewing does occasionally necessitate getting into long discussions on technicalities, even when you consider them "tiring", and does even require sometimes getting into rather heated discussions (which this isn't). Just giving up because you don't want to work with Montana doesn't really seem polite or fair to me, the person who did the majority of the work on the article and who has, as far as I know, responded to all of your points. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after inactivity

• It has been over a month since the above. If the review is not going to continue, it can be put back into the reviewing pool. Just let me know what you'd like to do; it's been inactive long enough. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Dana, but given that Mat and I seem to just find ourselves in a fight everywhere we go, I think that someone else should do a fresh review. See here. I don't know the way out of this, BlueMoonset, but Dana has yet to weigh in, so if you want to give her a bit more time to respond and then if she is offline, maybe you can just put it back into the queue for a fresh reviewer, I'd be OK with that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! I saw this a couple of days ago, but then forgot to reply... Christmas stuff, and my brother's home on leave :) I'm good with whatever - I would hope that Mathew would continue reviewing the article, but if a fresh reviewer wants to step in and have at it, that's fine with me, too. I had been planning to wait until after the holidays to ping Mathew, but if it's getting to be one of the longest "on-review" articles at GAN (I don't know, haven't checked), then dumping it back in the queue is OK by me. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite willing to continue this review, as long as User talk:Montanabw stays out of it. She has been quite rude to several editors at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests under Stephen Hawking, on Talk:Stephen Hawking, on the talk page of Malleus[1] and on my talk pageUser_talk:MathewTownsend#Hawking_lists, accusing established editors of POV and especially tearing into SandyGeorgia multiple times on various pages. I don't care what she says about me, but she seems to carry grudges to an alarming degree.

For the sake of my friend Dana, i will stay out of commenting on this article unless it appears that Mat is bringing her grudges against me into this review, to Dana's detriment, at which point I will ask that a different reviewer look at it. I do wish Mat would not have chosen to raise her accusations against me here, though; rudeness is relative, and she and Sandy have been positively vicious to me, though clearly Mat sees it otherwise. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this article is concerned, I think you've addressed my concerns, so I'm willing to pass it after one last look through. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things. "isbn:1580176135 - did not match any book results." (Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America), according to Google.

What are "dished profiles"?

Still checking sources and such.

Please check for close paraphrasing, e.g.

"DNA studies have shown the Kerry Bog Pony to be most closely related to the Welsh Pony, and also to other Northern European breeds such as the Shetland pony and the Icelandic horse. It is more distantly related to its more geographically close neighbor, the Connemara pony." (article)

DNA studies indicate that genetically the Kerry Bog Pony is closer to the Welsh pony than to its geographically closest neighbour, the Connemara pony. The KBP is more closely related to the Northern European breeds such as the Icelandic and Shetland pony ... (source[2]) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Irish" to "The cavalry became aware of the ponies in 1804" - is that correct? Placed on hold for response. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   After this was copy edited, the article was in messy condition. I went through and cleaned up poor wording, lack of punctuation, misspellings etc. Some one needs to check my work since now I am one one of the major editors of this article now.

   Some question about close paraphrasing, as pointed out in the discussion above, plus using the word "dished" (unattributed) since changed. The rest of the article should be checked for this, since so few sources are used.

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Only a few, short sources are listed that may be using each other's information Other than these, there is the one book and the one French source (both unaccessible on line); Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America seems like a superficial source and isn't focused on in depth information on origin of Irish ponies, looking at the reviews of the book online. The French source is unavailable. The websites have little info, IMO, and seem to rely on each other for information. Some points are not clarified.

   I added "Irish" cavalry as a guess as just saying "the cavalry" was unclear, but I'm not sure my addition is correct.

   The (Irish - my addition) cavalry became aware (unclear what "became aware" means) of the ponies in 1804, during the Peninsular Wars, (one source says Napoleonic Wars in Europe; another says "Many Irish equines were used as pack horses or as cavalry horses during the Peninsular Wars (1804 - 1814) and again a century later during the Great War.") and used them in the wars as pack animals; most did not return to Ireland. - I added "Irish" (for cavalry) but I'm unclear about the Peninsular Wars, the involvement of Ireland and the Bog Ponies in it, and exactly what happened after: e.g. Spanish donkeys were brought to the island to replace the ponies (why?)

   There is some question in my mind, after reading the sources, whether the ponies originated in Spain, not Ireland.

   c. no original research:

   Not sure. See Montanabw's long comment about, and other concerns I have expressed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   History could be more comprehensively covered (e.g. roles in wars), where ponies first originated, e.g. Spain?

   "In 1756 Charles Smith referred to a visit by Isaac Ware to Kerry in 1720 and to Ware's observation that such horses were formerly called Asturiones, as having been originally imported from the Asturias in Spain."[3]

   Could mention that DNA testing is required for registration.

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

   Although this is now considered an "Irish" horse, it is a relatively newly identified breed. It's history is murky. It emerged from 200 ponies and one sire and bred into a "breed" by one man.

   Again see Montanabw's lengthy comments above.

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall impression is that this article was not carefully written, and was nominated at GA too quickly, without proper clean up and thought. Much of the poor prose, sloppy mistakes etc. have been fixed hopefully, but I'm unsure that this is a accurate article about a breed, or rather one that is "pushed" by certain "official" sites.

   Suggest a more careful assembly of "facts", wider, less incestuous sources, more careful prose, then resubmit article for GA. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew, I think you have just done the LOWEST THING POSSIBLE to Dana boomer, and I think it is a wholly personal slap at me, not her. You PASS every criteria for GA, then fail the overall article, and I can only presume that you are doing so because of your intense personal animosity toward me. I suggest that you reconsider this bad faith fail. Dana is, clearly, not around at the moment to defend herself or her article, and those of us trying to answer your issues in a timely fashion are acting in good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was too nice in my review. The items I questioned should have been failed. I never received an answer to my last question about "Irish" - the whole thing about the wars and the ponies from Spain is unclear. I'll also add that I question the adequacy of the sources for this article. Bog Pony Co-Operative Society of Ireland[4] is cited 10 times (by far the major source), but there is no information as to its reliability, as it's a breed fancier's site. Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America is used 6 times but it's doubtful its a reliable source for this rare breed of pony (reading the reviews of this book). The only other sources are a handful of brief newspaper articles.

And please stop your incessant failure to assume good faith with me. It's getting wearing. As SandyGeorgia has said more than once[5], comment on the article not on the editors.

You are a bully hiding behind AGF. You clearly have failed to AGF with me. Diffs on request. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review clarified

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   After this was copy edited, the article was in messy condition. I went through and cleaned up poor wording, lack of punctuation, misspellings etc. Some one needs to check my work since now I am one one of the major editors of this article now.

   Some question about close paraphrasing, as pointed out in the discussion above, plus using the word "dished" (unattributed) since changed. The rest of the article should be checked for this, since so few sources are used.

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Only a few, short sources are listed that may be using each other's information Other than these, there is the one book and the one French source (both unaccessible on line); Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America seems like a superficial source and isn't focused on in depth information on origin of Irish ponies, looking at the reviews of the book online. The French source is unavailable. The websites have little info, IMO, and seem to rely on each other for information. Some points are not clarified.

   I added "Irish" cavalry as a guess as just saying "the cavalry" was unclear, but I'm not sure my addition is correct.

   The (Irish - my addition) cavalry became aware (unclear what "became aware" means) of the ponies in 1804, during the Peninsular Wars, (one source says Napoleonic Wars in Europe; another says "Many Irish equines were used as pack horses or as cavalry horses during the Peninsular Wars (1804 - 1814) and again a century later during the Great War.") and used them in the wars as pack animals; most did not return to Ireland. - I added "Irish" (for cavalry) but I'm unclear about the Peninsular Wars, the involvement of Ireland and the Bog Ponies in it, and exactly what happened after: e.g. Spanish donkeys were brought to the island to replace the ponies (why?)

   There is some question in my mind, after reading the sources, whether the ponies originated in Spain, not Ireland.

   c. no original research:

   Not sure. See Montanabw's long comment about, and other concerns I have expressed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   History could be more comprehensively covered (e.g. roles in wars), where ponies first originated, e.g. Spain?

   "In 1756 Charles Smith referred to a visit by Isaac Ware to Kerry in 1720 and to Ware's observation that such horses were formerly called Asturiones, as having been originally imported from the Asturias in Spain."[6]

   Could mention that DNA testing is required for registration.

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

   Although this is now considered an "Irish" horse, it is a relatively newly identified breed. It's history is murky. It emerged from 200 ponies and one sire and bred into a "breed" by one man.

   Again see Montanabw's lengthy comments above.

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall impression is that this article was not carefully written, and was nominated at GA too quickly, without proper clean up and thought. Much of the poor prose, sloppy mistakes etc. have been fixed hopefully, but I'm unsure that this is a accurate article about a breed, or rather one that is "pushed" by certain "official" sites.

   Suggest a more careful assembly of "facts", wider, less incestuous sources, more careful prose, then resubmit article for GA. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, so you didn't know what you were doing the first time you reviewed? An experienced GA reviewer such as you? Yes, this is proof that you have a personal issue here, your vindictiveness is showing. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying; I think I should defer to Dana to make the needed refinements in phrasing on this article, as she is the one with access to the source material. For your own background understanding, what happens with many of these "landrace" breeds is that they're shaped buy both environment AND human intention; i.e. humans select for the animals best suited to their needs in a given place, ignoring or culling unsuitable animals, but the climate, geography, etc. of the place also weed out weaker animals. BUT the other piece is that people brought horses to weird places (like bogs -- or deserts or jungles) where any sensible wild horse would never bother going, so that too was a human influence on what otherwise looks a lot like natural selection; the breed had to, somehow, adapt to an odd environment to be able to serve human needs. Horse domestication is a really complex issue, see History of horse domestication theories - as, basically, Y-DNA studies suggest that there were extremely few male animals originally domesticated, and their descendants were crossed on different populations of wild mares as domestication spread. So, for example, the ancient ancestors of most of these British Isles/Irish feral and semi-feral pony breeds were probably already small, fuzzy creatures adapted to cold, damp weather when domesticated horses arrived, the crossing of calmer horses with good dispositions on the native animals created a pony that was different from the wild ancestor in that it would cooperate with humans (as opposed to the still-wild Przewalski's horse, which is still prone to kick the shit out of people to this day) and meet their needs for a working animal in some weird place totally unsuitable for horses, yet because they lived in a semi-feral state of indifferent human care, they also kept their adapted characteristics and even developed new traits. Does that make sense? And is it adaptation, natural selection or artificial selection? Or all of the above? (Sorry to geek out on you, I happen to find the overall topic rather fascinating) Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• semi-amusing to skim your musing; overall impression is that you're missing the point. Once domestication enters the picture, natural selection is compromised. Again, please read adaptation and try to understand, and perhaps also Speciation, ecological niches and History of evolutionary thought. (smile) MathewTownsend (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall impression is that you also are missing my point; that both human intervention AND natural selection play a role in development of these semi-feral horse breeds. This not a subspecies of horse, it is a breed of horse shaped both by the environment in which it lives (arguably, adaptation of a sort, but not really the evolutionary process) AND by human intervention. And please, when you say "try to understand," that is implying that I am stupid. I would hope you could kindly apologize for that choice of wording. Montanabw^(talk) 21:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Pony Co-Operative Society of Ireland[7] is cited 10 times (by far the major source), but there is no information as to its reliability, as it's a breed fancier's site. Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America is used 6 times but it's doubtful its a reliable source for this rare breed of pony (reading the reviews of this book). The only other sources are a handful of brief newspaper articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew, this is getting a little ridiculous. The Society is the government-recognized breed registry and studbook holder. This makes it a reliable source, especially on pieces of information such as how many horses have been registered, studbook requirements, etc. Storey's is a book by an equine expert, published by a major company. If you have other suggestions for sources, I would love to hear them. This is, as you say, a rare breed. That makes finding sources difficult, as they do not exist is such quantity as they do for, say, the Thoroughbred. I have looked for other sources, as has the editor who took this article to GA quality on the French WP. General breed books, breed registries, and a few newspaper articles are all that multiple experienced editors have been able to find. You keep saying we should find other sources, but fail to mention what these sources should be. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dana, I'm afraid that this fail is entirely due to Mat's irrational and vindictive attitude toward me personally - and probably my refusal to just go slink off and suck my thumb somewhere (see Talk:Stephen Hawking for further examples). I don't understand why this became so personal, but I can arrive at no other conclusion. I am going to renominate this article for a different GA reviewer and hope things go smoother next time. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you have access to LexisNexis? I'm finding a few sources there that might be helpful. If not, one or both of you can email me and I'll forward a few articles. There's also Breaking the Silence Mary Denis Reidy, a book referenced by several LN articles. The breed is mentioned in an Animal Genetics article (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2006.01506.x) and one in Animal (10.1017/S1751731111001212). I'm having trouble accessing Factiva at the moment, but search results suggest a couple potential sources there too. All that being said, though: while if this article ever went to FAC I'd expect to see some of these sources incorporated, for GA level the current referencing is IMO adequate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can access some paid databases via the college where I am an adjunct. If you can toss me the cites, I may be able to find them. I also have already downloaded a few general articles about horse breeds in the British Isles, so may have something already too... (I'm useless at using doi links...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki! Montana, the first one can be accessed here, and the second one here (it's the third one down). You're better at reading DNA studies than I am - I think these two might be the basis of the DNA studies we discuss in the second paragraph of the Characteristics section?? Would you mind taking a look and seeing if there is anything that you think is useful and not too complicated (article for the layman and all that...). The book looks interesting, but is self published, which makes me a bit leery, and I'm not sure how expert the author is (one article I found said the author is a friend of Mulvihill, the main promoter of the breed). I'll probably toss it on my to-buy list, though, since it's not expensive. I'm definitely not planning to take the article to FAC right now (there's not enough breadth and depth of sources for my taste). Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some more potential sources (through LexisNexis and Factiva mostly): "Kerry Bog Pony back on track" Irish Times 29 july 2004; "Kerry bog pony given official status as rare breed" Irish Times, 02/08/2006; On the trail of the Kerry bog pony Irish Times 04/05/1994; Kerry's best kept secret Irish Independent, 10/16/2007; Breeding the real Kerry deal Irish Independent, 10/16/2007; The bog pony that nearly sank without a trace The Times, ISSN 0140-0460, 01/16/1997; Irish dead donkey tickles the Russian palate but untasty bog pony is safe The Observer 1997-11-2; In a rare land there is rarer still Irish Independent, 10/16/2007; DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02082.x; Plan to save rare pony Irish Times 03/24/1995. Most of these are quite short, but there should be some good material in there. Let me know if you need help accessing them. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Splitting these out, so I can reply one by one:

• "Kerry Bog Pony back on track" Irish Times 29 july 2004;
• "Kerry bog pony given official status as rare breed" Irish Times, 02/08/2006; Nothing new here - DB
• On the trail of the Kerry bog pony Irish Times 04/05/1994;
• Kerry's best kept secret Irish Independent, 10/16/2007; Nothing new here - DB
• Breeding the real Kerry deal Irish Independent, 10/16/2007; A bit of new info added - DB
• The bog pony that nearly sank without a trace The Times, ISSN 0140-0460, 01/16/1997;
• Irish dead donkey tickles the Russian palate but untasty bog pony is safe The Observer 1997-11-2;
• In a rare land there is rarer still Irish Independent, 10/16/2007; A bit of new info added. - DB
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02082.x; Nothing new here - DB
• Plan to save rare pony Irish Times 03/24/1995.

Will reply individually as I get access to these and integrate them. Dana boomer (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Although my attributions were removed from the article by Montanabw, the book Storey's Illustrated Guide to 96 Horse Breeds of North America (which is casually written) does qualify statements about the pony with "According to the American Kerry Bog Pony Association ..."[8]. I think similarly, the information from Kerry Bog Pony Co-Operative Society of Ireland also should be attributed. Being a "the government-recognized breed registry and studbook holder" doesn't mean the information on genetics and history of the breed is government certified. None of that information regarding genetics, history etc. is sourced. I'm sure the site is accurate as to numbers registered etc., but not necessarily for the history or genetics of the breed. Note that the source for the American enthusiasm was Mulvihill, according to the book. Are there sources for the history etc. of this breed independent of Mulvihill and friends?

  Please also check for close paraphrasing.

  Montanabw: "this fail is entirely due to Mat's irrational and vindictive attitude toward me personally - and probably my refusal to just go slink off and suck my thumb somewhere (see Talk:Stephen Hawking for further examples)."

  Please do see Talk:Stephen Hawking to elucidate the problems of editing when Montanabw is involved. (It's not just me that's accused of lacking good faith. Also, a read of Montanabw's comments at the Stephen Hawking entry at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests[9], and my talk page User_talk:MathewTownsend#Hawking_lists. I regret being blunt very much, but I believe people like Malleus believe there is such a thing as being baited. To accuse me of failing the article out of spite at Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA1 is beyond the pale. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus is right; there is a place for profanity, I'm sorely tempted, as it is YOU who are baiting and generally being a troll. Mathew, you've done enough damage to this article and you clearly don't know squat when you cannot tell the difference between an animal breed and a subspecies. You also fail to realize that most governments don't give "certification" to every genetic fact and bit of history research on ANYTHING. Further, your profound ignorance of Irish history was obvious: Ireland was not an independent nation in 1804, so it was impossible for them to have their own cavalry! It is manifestly clear from your actions that you have no intention of contributing anything useful here, you are only trying to bait me, So please, WIth all due respect, go commit the infamous anatomically impossible act - somewhere else. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MathewTownsend has been blocked as a sock. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean someone can now go over and pass the GAN? Dana is doing work to improve the page, but it's more FA tweaks than GA tweaks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and will make a detailed study of the article in the next couple of days. My first impression is of a well-written article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I believe the article was easily GA class at the time first nominated, and the lead editor, Dana, has made some nice improvements since. But as no article is ever perfect, ;-) we will still welcome additional constructive comments and suggestions, and are happy to answer any questions you may have. Be aware that the previous GA fail of this article was done by a now-blocked sockpuppet who had been in disputes with me in the past and had an active dispute with me on an unrelated article at the time. I feel bad that the article was failed, as it was due to a personality issue, not the article itself (IMHO), so if I can be of any service in helping this round go more smoothly, I hope to be of help in any way possible!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some things I noticed on reading through the article. Some of them are more matters of opinion rather than errors, so feel free to take no action where you think my suggestions are wrong.

• Where you mention the "Irish government", I think both words should be capitalised.

• MOS on capitalization in sentence case says otherwise (this week), but if you want to put it in caps, I won't object. (I am really tired of the capitalization wars on the MOS boards and so have no position on the matter). --Montanabw (MTBW)

• "Possibly descending from the Irish Hobby horse," - I would have thought "descended" would be better. And should the word "horse" be capitalised?

• Fixed "descended," The "Irish Hobby" is the breed, there actually is an MOS spat over when to use capitalization of "horse" in breed names, which we are, at the moment, just going along with whatever the "MOS-gods" want this week, which is currently lower sentence case. The word "horse" is not integral to the breed name, except when clarifying that it's a horse we are talking about, so I think lower case is OK. However, we can make it caps if you wish. --MTBW

• " In 1994, a local man found and genetically tested a herd of 20 ponies that he used as the foundation stock for its rebuilding." - It is unclear what the "its" refers to, is it the herd or the breed?

• Made into two sentences and clarified. --MTBW

• " They are known by enthusiasts for strength, intelligence and athleticism, ..." - Again, it is a bit unclear what "they" refers to.

• Clarified, let me know if this can be better worded. --MTBW

• "The Kerry Bog Pony may have played a part in the development of the Gypsy Vanner horse (also known as the Irish Cob), in addition to other breeds." - This is somewhat ambiguous. Did KBP contribute to "other breeds" or did "other breeds" also contribute to GV?

• The GV is a "mutt" the KBP is one of many, clarified. --MTBW

• The first paragraph of the History section needs to be either all in the singular or in the plural. At the moment it is a bit of both.

Couldn't quite get the whole paragraph all one or the other, but at least fixed the sentences and did some rephrasing. Is it better now? --MTBW

• "Some were trained to harness and used to pull carts" - I would suggest you change this to "Some were trained to work in harness ... "

Fixed --MTBW

• " ... during the Peninsular Wars, and used them in the wars as pack animals;" - Too many "wars".

• The link title is now singular, so changed the sentence a bit. Better now? --MTBW

• " ... as farmers who previously utilized them died or immigrated." - I think you mean "emigrated".

• Fixed -- MTBW

• "In 1995, he had DNA testing performed on the ponies, " - I think this could be better expressed.

• Will look at sources to see how this can be rephrased and will get back to you. -- MTBW Follow up: reworded, let me know if this is better. --MTBW

• " ... and the first ponies were imported to the US in 2003" - I think this should be "exported".

• Fixed and clarified for future readers. -- MTBW

• " ... and houses part of the existent Kerry Bog Pony population." - I think this should be "existing".

• Fixed --MTBW

• "Connemara pony" - should this be capitalised? After all, you have capitalized "Kerry Bog Pony" throughout the article.

• Same MOS spat noted above. We clearly must include "Pony" in the name, lest it be confused with a swamp, but a "Connemara", arguably, can stand alone, as the modifier is implied, or so they tell me. Again, if you'd like it in caps, I'm fine with it, but the MOS drive-bus often come through and change it all back again. (Not frustrated at you, just frustrated at this constant back and forth on title case capitalization, sigh) --MTBW

That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth for your comments. Please let me know if phrasing can be further improved, and as far as the capitalization thing, feel free to go in there and tweak that as you see fit. I defer to the reviewer on this, but fully anticipate that whichever way we go, the MOS patrol will change it back and forth about every six months from now until the end of time...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with most of your changes and your rationale on capitalizing names. The only exception is the Irish Government, which I would capitalise, whereas I would not capitalise the government of Ireland. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, capitalized "Government." IF the MOSCOPs complain, it's their problem!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not happy with the sentence - "In 1995, he had DNA testing performed on the ponies, which defined unique genetic markers for the breed," which seems to me to read awkwardly. I don't have access to the sources for this statement but how would this be - "In 1995, unique genetic markers were established for the breed following DNA testing." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't have access to Storey, Dana has that book, but the source I have access to (footnote 7 - from which I derived my rewrite) states as follows: "Weatherby’s Ireland, DNA Laboratories confirmed unique breedmarkers of the Kerry Bog Pony and ponies were tested to identify foundation stock to replenish the breed." One of the underlying studies is this one, cited elsewhere in the article, and it's extremely technical. But basically, it appears that there are three things going on; one is the 1994-5 testing of Flashy Fox and the other ponies that identified their unique blood type (which they could do prior to the sequencing of the entire horse genome in 2009. Second, there have been multiple DNA studies since the 1990s where unique genetic markers have been found in the KBP generally particularly some unique MtDNA haplotypes,, and today DNA is used to identify individual animals and to verify parentage. see also. I don't want to get into WP:SYNTH territory and exceed the sources. How does something like this sound? In 1994, Mulvihill had genetic testing performed on his pony herd,(site Storey) which showed them to be a unique breed.(Cite Kerry Bog VIllage) He used these animals as his foundation bloodstock to rebuild the breed. (cite Storey) Subsequent DNA studies showed unique genetic markers for the breed,( citation to KBP soc) and revealed...Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something along those lines should be fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be a couple days before I get back to this, but I'll take a whack at it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tweaked. Added a new source and rephrased some stuff (BTW, someone really should create an article on the Kerry Bog Village; it looks like it's extremely cool!) Have I addressed all concerns now? :) Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is of a satisfactory standard
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article complies with the MOS
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is adequately sourced
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This criterion is met
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article deals well with the subject
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This criterion is met
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This criterion is met
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No problem
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriate and relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	I have considered the matters of concern that were raised in the previous GA review and consider that they have either been satisfactorily addressed or were insubstantial and that this article now meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review, Cwmhiraeth! Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]