Talk:Dølehest

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know slightly more about horses after that last GA review, so let's keep improving my knowledge! Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Prose

Just some minor comments – I made a few minor changes, fixed dashes using a helpful script and found a category to add, so the remaining points are:

• stud book or studbook? You use both

  I fixed that. Used one word, but two words is equally correct. But they are all the same now, at least-- MTBW

• Last sentence of the lead: can we avoid "breeds to breed"?

  Fixed --MTBW

• "Clean" x-rays? (I think I know what you mean, i.e. clear of defects, but I'm not sure if "clean" is the best word here.)

• Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Mazarin was an Arabian imported to Norway in 1934." Seems a little out of place, since you've mentioned him a few sentences ago, then moved on to discuss other stallions, then come back to him.

• I've moved this around a bit. Mazarin and Odin were the two most important stallions in the history of the type, and so it is important to discuss them together, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "During the same period, a stallion named Brimen 825..." which period, 1840 to 1860, or around 1934?

• The source actually doesn't say. I've removed "during the same period", as I can't find a source that says when he was bred, used, anything... Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your OSU source says "The difference between the two types has been greatly reduced in recent years due to interbreeding between the types", but I don't really see that pointed out in the article, unless I'm missing something - you mention interbreeding, but not the effect.

• Added a bit to the characteristics section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

One, appropriate and correctly licensed

Sources

Appropriate, reliable, well-used. No detectable inappropriate usage, no signs of original research or bias

Focus and other factors

Sufficiently broad and detailed. Article is stable. No dablinks, and external links are all functioning correctly.

So, on hold for the traditional period to address or dispute these points. Bencherlite^Talk 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for another review, Bencherlite! I think that between the two of us, Montana and I have managed to address your comments. Please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed. Passed. Bencherlite^Talk 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Dole Gudbrandsdal → Dølehest – The horse is called Dølehest by the official breed association, Landslaget for Dølehest, and has little distribution outside Norway. WP:ENGLISH does not apply here – the current name is a Norwegian name, just the wrong Norwegian name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the move, and you could have just asked here, rather than opening a formal request for move. If several contributors/editors agree that the article should be moved and there is no opposition, then it can just be moved, no requested move necessary.

However, that being said, please be more careful when you're editing articles. The reference format (in-line to list defined) should NOT be changed without prior consensus from involved editors. If there are no heavily involved editors, or they don't care, it's fine to make the switch. However, as I'm the one who took it to GA status, I'm heavily involved, and I don't like list-defined references - I find them a pain in the rear. All of the places that you added citation needed tags were already referenced (just look for the next citation in the article; every sentence does not need a reference), and due to the discussion on the Draft Trotter page I am already well aware that this may need a rewrite after that discussion is finished, so all of the dubious tags are unneeded. I am planning to wait until that article is in better shape before working (hopefully with Pitke and his Scandanavian refs) to improve this article. Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for changing the reference system. Kindly refrain from giving me orders in the future, even if it is only in an edit summary; I am neither a servant nor a dog.

Every single one of the tags I placed was placed with care in the place where it was, and still is, required. Unreferenced statements are no more justified in the opening paragraph of the article than anywhere else. The article as it stands is, unfortunately, riddled with errors, misquotations, dubious statements, unreferenced assertions and confusions. Where, for example, does anyone say that "the Frisian people were known traders in the area between 400 and 1066 AD"? It looks as if someone has muddled together the OSU dates for the Frisians (hardly a reliable source anyway) and Edwards's dates for later "to-ing and fro-ing" between Norway and Britain as an explanation of his own theory that the Dølehest is similar to the Fell and Dales ponies (that to-ing and fro-ing is likely to prove to have been by the Vikings and Danes more than the Frisians anyway, I surmise). Who says that Odin was formerly called Partisan? The breed association says "Odin, by Partisan", neither Edwards nor OSU, the references given for that passage, support the assertion. And so on. I'm sorry, but it is not a good article as it stands, and I was about to place a {{subst:GAR}} marker here. However, given that it looks as if there will need to be big changes here anyway once the coldblood article is up and running, I think it better to wait on that for now. Please be more careful when editing: you have removed reliably referenced material on Veikle Balder 4, the foundation sire of the breed; I was under the impression that removing referenced material was frowned on (at least, it seems to be frowned on if I do it). I was also told that if there was stuff in an article that was patently wrong, "the tag is [my] friend". But now I don't seem to be able to place a tag either. I can't help feeling that this business of article status is having a profoundly negative effect, causing the owners of the articles to defend them against change even when they so obviously need to be changed. Oh, and WP:UNITS is perfectly clear on the matter of units, too. Please excuse me if the above is not exactly dripping with honey; I had actually spent quite some time on trying to make a start on sorting out this mess, and it is a little galling to find that effort unthinkingly reverted. Thank you,
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't giving "orders" in my edit summaries, just trying to make it very clear that changes reference formatting without prior consensus is rude and frowned upon. I would also appreciate not having the articles that I have put a significant amount of time and energy into called "a mess" - that is also rude. Yes, it needs work now that new information has come to light. It does, however, still contain a majority of good information, which has been improved upon even today with references that both of us have provided. I have not removed referenced material on Veilke. Your sentence said "In 1849, another influential stallion was foaled, named Veikle Balder 4; he was a grandson of Odin, and is considered to be the foundation sire of the Dølehest breed." My sentence says "In 1849, another influential stallion was foaled, named Veikle Balder 4; he was a grandson of Odin and is considered the foundation stallion of the heavier Dole type." Not sure where this is removed referenced material. The information on Odin being a son of Partisan has also been corrected...not sure why this is again a problem. And I'm not seeing where all of the places you tagged are "required" to have sources. For instance, you placed a tag after "These strict and organized standards have improved the quality of the Dole breed over the past few decades." This is sourced to the OSU ref placed a couple of sentences later, which describes the breed standards and selection of breeding stock and then says "Quality of the Døle has improved during the last several years due to the organized selection of breeding stock." Because this was written in 1995, I thought I was justified in using a more vague time period than "last few years". When I get home I will check my references on the other points that you make. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, great, you've just done more of the same. You've moved the dolehest.no reference marker to Odin being the foundation sire to the end of a sentence that is about something quite else, although the material in that sentence is not included in the reference (Brimen 825 and so on); the reference marker was correctly placed before, what need was there to move it? Or indeed to alter the title from what it actually reads (Welcome to www.dolehesten.no) to something different? You've also changed the meaning of it: the source reads "Veikle Balder 4 is to be considered the founding father of this breed", which of course means that it does not read and does not mean "[VB4] is considered the foundation stallion of the heavier Dole type." That is your interpretation of it, and as such is original research. I do appreciate that your hands are completely tied by having the article about two separate breeds, knowing that they are separate, but not being ready to make the split; what makes it even worse is that Edwards says that there are two types of "Dole Gudbrandsdal", a heavier and a lighter, as well as the quite separate "Dole Trotter". I think "mess" was a very conservative term in the circumstances (and, fwiiw, was not intended to be taken personally). You are also using that dolehesten.no reference for the height of the horse, but you have the height in the wrong units (the source gives it in cm, the units used in almost every country of the western world for horse height), and you also have the wrong figures (the source gives 145–155, though the breed standard gives 148–155, and makes it clear that height is not the most important thing anyway). I had edited the height data and the units (and the unit template, which is now working fine) to match the source; you now need either to replace the height information I had inserted or, if you really insist on having it wrong, remove the reference. I am curious to know why you think you can ignore what WP:UNITS has to say on this topic. You may have noticed that most of the 'dubious' tags I placed earlier were on improbable statements from that OSU page, a page so carefully made that it contains errors of basic syntax. I would like to suggest that this should not be considered a reliable source here or anywhere else, and should be cited only with the very greatest circumspection.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, be nice! You've been a helpful and cooperative editor for several weeks, but are slipping back into that old rude, tendentious and defensive attitude that was causing you problems with me a few weeks back. Dana was explaining, not ordering. We all agree you are not a dog. You are, however, once again behaving rudely. Speaking only for myself, I am strongly suggesting that you be aware of how rude you sound to others and stop acting all upset and touchy when you are called on it. If you have not yet read WP:AGF and WP:TENDENTIOUS, I suggest you do so. It is one thing to point out legitimate questions and concerns. It is another to be insulting. The line isn't hard to find. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where the tags were

Incredibly tedious though it is to have to do so, I am listing here the points in the article that I tagged as cn or dubious earlier, plus a couple of minor edits, with some brief reasons, in the hope that the article may in the end be slightly improved as a result. Of course it would have been much clearer and much less work to just leave the tags in place. I can only work from about three pages at once, so some of these points may already have been addressed in subsequent edits.

• There are two subtypes of the breed, the Dole Gudbrandsdal and the Dole Trotter . Edwards has them separate, the Dølehest association site does no apparently mention a trotter type; the OSU site has them as one breed, as does Bongianni

• I have changed this with multiple references to make it clear that some sources view them as subtypes of the same breed, while others see them as different breeds. While Edwards has a separate page header for the Dole Trotter, he also says they "[were] the lighter type of Dole Gudbrandsdal", making it ambiguous whether he actually thinks they are separate breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• the two types are commonly interbred. This comes from OSU; it is directly contradicted by this site (which I would not cite as a reference, but am citing as evidence of dubiety)

• Added more sources. Unless you can find me a reliable source saying the aren't interbred, this should be kept, since multiple reliable sources say they are interbred. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The first studbook was created in 1941, Nordgen gives 1939 for the coldblood trotter

• Added a new paragraph from the Trotter Association on the evolution of the Gudbrandsdal/Trotter studbook. It says nothing about either 1939 or 1941, so have removed this information altogether. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Both types have been crossed with other breeds to develop horses for harness racing and riding.

• Changed to "Dole Gudbrandsdal" rather than "both types". Referenced in uses section. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Dole horses closely resemble the British Fell and Dales ponies, which may derive from the same ancestral stock. (altered back to developed by DanaBoomer) Edwards (a) is speculating and (b) makes that clear with the wording "... would have developed ...". He doesn't say "... developed ...", so nor should we

• "would have developed" does not equal "may derive". Basically, multiple sources say the Dole developed from the Friesian and multiple sources say the Fell/Dales derive from the Friesian and multiple sources say the Dole resembles the Fell/Dales (an extra citation added on the last point). Not sure what the problem is with this, unless you have other reliable sources that say they don't derive from the same stock. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• These strict and organized standards have improved the quality of the Dole breed over the past few decades. My mistake, this should have been Apparently taken from OSU site, unreferenced there, a subjective judgement at best

• OSU provides it's sources, they're at the bottom of the page. The majority of the sources we use don't have footnotes, and they're not required per the reliable source policy, or even the high quality reliable source criteria required by FAC, which we're not aiming for. Many sources make subjective judgments, that doesn't make them bad. Do you have a source that contradicts this statement? Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• During the late 20th century, interbreeding between the two types became quite common; due to this, the breed became much more uniform in type, with fewer differences between the trotter and draft sections. (as above) OSU again, unsubstantiated elsewhere, directly contradicted here

• Please only use reliable sources to "contradict" statements. We can't use that as a source, so it really doesn't matter. Another source provided anyway - multiple reliable sources say that they are commonly interbred, and I have yet to see a source that says there is no interbreeding. Do you have such a source? Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• the Frisian people were known traders in the area between 400 and 1066 AD. This apparently conflates two different statements, OSU that the Friesians traded with Norway 400–800 AD, Edwards that there was "to-ing and fro-ing" between Britain and Norway 800–the Norman conquest (to justify his Dale/Fell/Døle hypothesis)

• Tweaked this and added a bit more. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Odin (previously named Partisan) This is in Bongianni, I now find (using Look Inside on Amazon.com), but contradicted by the Dølehest assiciation site; FIXED.

• Odin ... was a stallion of either Thoroughbred or Norfolk Trotter this too is in Bongianni, contradicted by the Dølehest site

• Multiple RS's say that he was possible a Norfolk Trotter, so need to include this possibility. Added more refs. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Dole Trotter was especially influenced between 1840 and 1860 by two other stallions, Toftebrun and Dovre; the latter is considered the true foundation stallion of the Dole Trotter type. Also in Bongianni

• Mazarin was an Arabian imported to Norway in 1934. Also in Bongianni; but the following sentence, about Brimen 825, is not - that is in Edwards. Reference markers should be placed near the statement being referenced.

• Re the last two points, more refs have been added to these paragraphs. However, we do not need to have refs after every sentence - two or three refs at the end of a paragraph is fine. What the UN says has no bearing on the matter. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

References should be placed near the statement yes, but need not be immediately after. If several sentences alternate between two refs, the two refs can be placed together after the end of the alternating sentences. More later. Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd trust the United Nations on that one.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts related to any or all of the above: 1) WP:MOS and WP:CITE govern here and trump all else. 2) Sometimes it's a fine line between being true to a source and copying it so closely that we trigger a copyvio problem. Sometimes we need to make the point with our own words and not be excessively slavish to the source as long as the correct nuance is maintained. 3) Breed sites are authoritative for many things, but must be viewed with as much caution and analysis as any other source, they often have their own agendas and polities. Encyclopedias aren't perfect either, but my point is that we don't want to just blindly assume that if a breed site says it, it must be true. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; plus, the UN has nothing to do with WP's policies and guidelines. Also, my apologies for my lack of work on the article over the past couple of days - yesterday and today have been the first nice weather days after over two weeks of rainy, snowy, cruddy weather (in APRIL!!!), so we've been trying to get caught up on spring chores. Plus an old horse at our barn having to be put down with massive heart failure yesterday... So, basically, I've barely been around, and for that I apologize. Tomorrow is supposed to go back to being cruddy again, so will probably have some time then to focus on this. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Replies above. Because the two types are so closely tied together, there is no way to fully pull the two apart. The best we can do, I think, is to make it clear that there are at least two types, and in some peoples' minds, two different breeds. Because of this, and because of the intertwined early history of the breed, all of the information on the Dole Trotter is never going to be able to be pulled out of this article - it is a large part of the history of the Dole Gubrandsdal, and the dispute over whether it is a breed or a type means that at least some information belongs in this article, as well as the Coldblood Trotter article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the horse, Dana. Looks to me like you've explained this well. Count your weather blessings, we too now have sun, but we had three inches of snow on Saturday (yep, last day of April). Been a weird year. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)