Jump to content

Talk:Dominant white/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


As of 6/22, things to include or add

I think that to help this article remain accessible to the right people, there will need to be some discussion of the following: lethality and health defects, sabino vs. dominant white, is dominant white pinto?
1. Lethality. "In horses, dominant white was reported to cause embryonic lethality in the homozygous state [4]. However, this report on the embryonic lethality was derived from the analysis of offspring phenotype ratios in a single herd segregating one or more unknown mutations. As there is now evidence for allelic heterogeneity, it remains to be proven whether all equine dominant white mutations cause embryonic lethality in the homozygous state. While this is certainly likely for the two nonsense mutations found in Franches-Montagnes Horses and Arabians, it should not necessarily be assumed for the two reported missense mutations or for any of the other as-yet unknown W mutations." (2007 study). Pulos and Hutt bred a number of "white" horses to each other, and non-white mates. If the proposed W allele was recessive, they'd expect a pair of white parents to produce 100% white foals. This did not happen. However, they also never found a horse that ALWAYS had white foals, so they determined that there were no homozygotes. This, and some progeny ratios, led to the conclusion that "white" is homozygous lethal. I know that the main stallion in their paper, "Snow King", is descended from "Old King" so he's an AWH. (Aside: Interestingly, the main studies on white from P&H and earlier were focused on this family, but even though our friends at UKY and Switzerland have discovered 12 alleles associated with white phenotypes on KIT, the AWH wasn't involved. I don't know if they weren't included in the studies, or if they were, but nothing has yet been found.) I do not know the origins of all the other white horses in their studies. Knowing what we know now, their study presumes that all these white horses were white by the same genetic stroke. That seems unlikely. Regardless, this has seemed to hold up. But the fact of the matter is that we don't know whether these conditions are homozygous lethal or not. The presumption is based on: progeny ratios from P&H, some similar conditions in mice, and an apparent lack of homozygotes. However, all of these alleles are quite new in the grand scheme of things, and to try to breed a homozygote would require the crossing of closely-related horses. There hasn't been much of a CHANCE for a homozygote. This needs to be worded very carefully, lest people come away with the idea that breeding horses with socks together will give them dead foals.
1b. Health defects. All the horses studied so far have had unremarkable fertility and blood parameters.
2. Sabino vs. dominant white. This is a sticky subject because sabino is so poorly defined. Sabino can mean: "Sabino 1", excessive white, or white markings suggestive of excessive white in offspring. "Sabino 1" is, like all the W alleles, on the KIT gene and is a form of dominantly-inherited white spotting. Sabino 1 can be distinguished from "dominant white" in that it produces a white phenotype in the homozygous state and is not homozygous lethal. However, the lethality of white is tenuous. Since no homozygotes for any of the W alleles have been identified, we don't know what they look like. Maybe some forms are not HZ lethal and will give a white phenotype. At this point, I'm open to suggestions of how best to explain this...
3. Dominant white = pinto? Well, yes. Dominant whites can be registered as pinto/paint because they have a type of dominant white spotting. We are on a funny continuum from minor white markings on one end, through vague sabino-like phenotypes in the middle, to all-white phenotypes at the other end.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Additions? Countercanter (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just weighing in to say that I have gotten online, finally, and will look over the article, haven't had time to do so in depth. For now, "Sabino" must be explained in terms of both SB-1 and all the other ways "sabino" is used beyond SB-1 simply because the use of the term is such a big deal in the non SB-1 breeds (I mean, why Arabs and Clydesdales sometimes get spots IS a real interesting question...), in part because they are adamant that their horses do not carry frame, and because tobiano is considered by some to be proof of coarse breeding...
As for pinto, yeah, it's a funny continuum until someone with the initials P, h, and D publishes the paper that explains it all!  :-P While it is true that the pinto and Paint registries would sometimes record white horses when no one else would, (including Sabino-whites, once called "living lethals") we can't really go clear into the realm of original research synthesis to say that, for example, Tobiano IS "dominant white." I mean, if Sponenberg or someone says it is, we could say "some scientists suggest that..." with a footnote in both articles, but to make the leap is just too much for laypeople. We gotta let Pintos be pintos. (And the Medicine Hat, by the way, is just the head marking, but the horse CAN have spots elsewhere, the next one you see is the "shield" marking. A lot of horses that people call "Tovero" have a medicine hat (an "overo" family marking) and a "shield" (arguably a tobiano marking).) More once I have had a chance to do a read-over. Feel free to revert my tweaks if they weren't helpful! Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweakity do-dah

Went over the article and hopefully didn't wreck anything. Wow! I am impressed with your work! I basically tried to explain a few things in laypeople's terms, threw a few bones to the old way of thinking to help lead people into the 21st century (including myself) and then did my usual thing of minor rewording here, minor rearranging there, etc. I hope I didn't change the meaning or nuance of anything, and feel free to fix the article (and slap me) as needed. I added a lot of hidden text where I was either explaining what I did or asking questions about whether you knew what you were doing or not (LOL!). Overall, this is just a terrific effort and I am seriously blown away! GREAT job! Montanabw(talk) 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressing "most of the body" in the intro

"but may also produce some forms of white spotting that covers most of the body." Haase et al commented on phenotypic variation in W5 and W10 whites ("We observed a remarkable phenotypic variability for some of the equine W alleles. The alleles W1, W5 and W10 occur in completely white horses but also in horses with substantial residual pigmentation") In their article, they show two pictures of W10 horses: one (almost?) all white and one with a sizable blaze, stockings to just past the joints, a belly spot and a random spot on the hindquarter. Surely that does not count as white covering most of the body. [1] Castle's article contains photos of W5 whites, and [2] this link has lots of photos of Puchilingui's descendants. I understand what you are trying to communicate: traditionally associated with all-white or nearly-white coats, link to "regular" white markings not yet known, etc. However, the research does not support the notion that a horse with a known W allele must be all-white, near-white, or even mostly-white. The studies give plenty of examples that aren't mostly-white. Countercanter (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Blue eyes

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. It needs to be more thoroughly explained, and now I have a quote!
Haase et al 2007: "Eyes are normally pigmented in dominant white horses, probably due to the different origin of the retinal melanocytes, which develop from local neuroectoderm and not from the neural crest, as do the skin melanocytes."
The 2009 study contains no remarks about blue eyes. I know that they are not a trait of W5. In Castle's introduction, she characterizes true white horses: "...white horses with dark eyes, pink skin, and snowy white coats at birth."
She describes eye color in Sabino 1 horses: "But unlike double cream dilute horses and horses that are a combination of pinto patterns that can cause blue eyes (Splash White), homozygous SB1 horses do not have blue eyes. Their eyes are fully pigmented."
Further on: "Unless another white pattern gene is involved that causes blue eyes, the eyes of a Dominant White horse are expected to have normal pigment."
She also takes the time to describe an unusual circumstance of blue eyes in R Khasper's family. "R Khasper’s paternal grand sire is Khemosabi, believed by some to have the Splash White gene, which can cause blue or partial blue eyes. Another possibility is that it is an as yet unidentified Sabino-type gene that may sometimes causes blue or partial blue eyes."
Pulos and Hutt describe both blue and brown-eyed mares. Snow King was brown-eyed. Old King was brown-eyed. Countercanter (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. So your position is all blue-eyed horses must have something other than dominant white or SB-1 going on? Interesting. Frame overos also have blue eyes too, I think. However, It's probably total baloney that Khemosabi had splash white, I have no clue where she got that. I'd sure like to see that source... No one in the Arabian industry claims that. (I saw that in the article and raised my eyebrows on it) He's widely credited as a source for "sabino" Arabians. (Whatever the sabino gene is in Arabs, it sure is heck is not splash white, it's the typical roaning on the legs, wide blazes, body spot thing). There is a "sabino" pattern in Arabians that dates at least back to Mesaoud. But splash white, at least as the APHA defines it, does not exist in Arabians, nor does overo or tobiano. As least as far as we know. Montanabw(talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you there, having had an unattractive argument with someone on CotH over whether or not Khemosabi was splash. Such people do exist (btw, when you polled the whole Arabian horse industry, what other questions did you include? =P ). I'm not sure what to make of Moonlight Money Maker! He looks so...so...splash!
My position on blue eyes and dominant white is that of the literature: white phenotypes (tracing to KIT) are not associated with blue eyes, except in certain families. Frame and splash are a whole 'nother kettle of fish (and not on KIT). Not that I would write it in this article, but I think Castle's other mention - "sabino-like" gene(s) may cause blue eyes - has merit. That's what I happen to think. As the 2007 group wrote, retinal pigment cells are affected by different genetic factors. They certainly share some chemical/differential pathways with skin pigment cells, as we see in frame, cream, etc., but there are ways to get blue eyes without getting white skin/hair, and vice versa.
As you know I am a Crabbet/CMK kinda gal and if you ask me any self-respecting Arabian is chestnut or grey (but I have recently been converted to Non-Greyism, so chestnut it is!) and I'm very familiar with the lineages that predispose to excessive white. Have you ever checked out the Aulrab descendants at [Fairview Stud] in the frozen north? WOAH white. I would love to learn more about these horses. Several of the lines have blue eyes, and I'm also interested in them in the way they exemplify white gene "stacking." Especially fascinating are this mare with a very roany sire and dam. She has a blue eye but I really, truly do not see splash in her. I can think of people who would disagree but... I'm fascinated by how even and complete her roaning is, and how well-defined it is from her distal white markings. Her offspring are shown, too. None have blue eyes, but the eldest is quite roaned while the other two are not. In a way, the fact that these horses have such a tight gene pool is really helpful in terms of studying them. I've been looking at what happens when these horses are outcrossed on a more modestly-marked chestnut sire, Lewisfield Magic. The resultant offspring are much more demure. Anyway, now I'm just chatting, and I have work to do! Countercanter (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see why people say "splash," but I don't know why they'd want it. Arabs have enough genetic conditions without adding deafness to the mix...I will suppress the possible cracks about heavily Egyptian lines, of which I am not fond (LOL! and how's that for passive voice?). I will also repress the urge to suggest that someone snuck in a "Pintabian." (In the 80's, it's an open secret that a few Saddlebreds got snuck in behind the barn and the foals registered as purebred, though I don't personally know which lines) I WILL note that to be fair, Abu Farwa had a LOT of white. People usually trace the major white stuff to Mesaoud, who apparently had a lot of body white that isn't visible on the known photographs of him. By the way, what, if anything, have you found on Rabicano? Most "Rabicano" Arabs have been registered as "roan." And the roaning is somewhat distinct from the "sabino" stuff, mostly body roaning -- Rabicano often have few white facial markings and not a lot of leg white. (Though it's obvious that the two patterns can be present in the same horse.) It gets confused/mixed with whatever "Sabino" is in Arabs, but seems to have some distinct characteristics (at least the "skunk tail" thing seen in a lot of bays...but chestnuts usually have the roaning...go figure). Dang, but someone has to get to the bottom of this! FYI, I am a Bay horse fan, personally. (Kehelian type in Arabs, generally) Cross CMK on Polish lines, then I'm the happiest! Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brindle/mosaicism/chimerism...

This is the article on chimeric brindles. The two important quotes for the purposes of this article are:

Penedo is quick to point out that there is evidence of a type of brindling pattern in horses that appears to be inherited, linked to a coat pattern gene, as it is in dogs and cattle. “We can’t say that it is always embryo fusion that leads to the brindling pattern in horses,” she said.

and

“The best way to think about it is, most chimeras are brindles, but not all brindles are chimeras,” said Phillip Sponenberg, D.V.M, Ph.D., noted author and equine color geneticist from Virginia Tech’s Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine in Blacksburg, Virginia.

“Chimeras are mixtures of two individual animals,” he continued. “Those animals usually end up being striped, like a brindle horse. “However, there does seem to be a coat color pattern (in horses) that is brindle that is not related to chimerism,” he continued. “There is a gene floating around that can bring about the brindling coat pattern.” Sponenberg thinks that it might have to do with the gene that causes the “sooty” coat color.

“I suspect that the brindling gene reorganizes the sootiness into stripes,” he said. “For example, if you look at horses that are bay brindles, they still have the black points, so the brindling doesn’t affect the lower legs. It just seems to reorganize the body color. “I think that for the (brindling to be expressed), the horse has to have both the gene for the brindling, as well as the right background color to demonstrate it on. That’s why I think they’re so hard to breed for.” The point is you can’t tell that a horse is chimeric just by looking at it. “That’s where (genetic) testing is very useful,” he pointed out.

(Personal aside: Not sure if I buy the sootiness thing, but, no matter.)

Chimerism is when two completely separate embryos bump into each other and fuse together, then continue along the normal developmental path. This is exceedingly uncommon, and honestly if it weren't for CSI I don't think I'd have had a clue what it was, either. I love developmental biology and I'm totally fascinated by chimerism and what it can tell us about development and cell-signalling. The implications for auto-immune research are also really interesting.

Mosaicism is when one perfectly normal embryo is developing, and during the course of DNA replication, a mistake is made. Maybe this happens at the 2-cell stage, or 16-cell stage, or 40th round of division. It starts out with just one cell, which continues to divide and divide into more cells. Thus all the descendant cells have the mutation, while the rest of the cells do not. If the affected cell gives rise to sex cells, then the animal's offspring may have the mutation. This scenario makes the most sense to me when I think of Catch A Bird. I wish he hadn't fallen into bad hands, such a shame to lose the opportunity to study him!

Also, last year or the year before there was a stallion candidate going through Neumunster (thus, Westphalian) who had the most interesting coat. Here is a link to a video of him. And this is him as a baby. He is certainly sabino-ish, but he looks like a good candidate for a new type of dominant white, or mosaicism. Here is his sire (PDF). His dam is by Rubinstein out of a Goya mare; no great color there. Unfortunately he was eventually injured and did not make the cut, so to speak, and thus I do not know his eventual name nor where he ended up. Cute guy though! Countercanter (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. may have to tweak the brindle article. I"m on dialup this evening and couldn't get at all the pics, though... Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nuclear transfer saddles up"

I was referred to this figure, and I would love to see whether the original article can support this Wikipedia article. Otherwise, it is a fascinating image. Countercanter (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing lethality

The question of whether or not dominant white is homozygous embryonic lethal needs to be better addressed in this article. I found the article was becoming repetitive, so I'm going to restructure it a little.

Identification
"White" horses that are not dominant white
Prevalence
Inheritance
Short overview, identifying the KIT gene, defining terms
History of the genetics studies of dominant white, from Sturtevant (1912) to Haase et al (2009)
Allelic series (W1-11, as they are now)
Molecular genetics
Lethal dominant white
Expression
Sabino vs. dominant white could really stand to be discussed
Homologous conditions

Any other thoughts or thinks to point out when discussing lethality would be appreciated. Countercanter (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess my take is to first work on getting each section to say what you want it to say and eliminating redundancies, THEN figure out what order they should go in the article (unless an order just begs to be changed as you are working) I'd consider moving the bulk of the "white not dominant white" section farther down the article, and maybe move the stuff on grays and cremellos, etc. into white (horse) with a "main" link here, here mostly spending time on sabino-white (is there any other way we get to "true" white other than sb-1 and W??) Definitely also need to discuss LWS versus Lethality in Dominant white, as there is still a lot of confusion out there (not helped by the APHA) I always favor structuring the article with the easy stuff first (for kids, etc.) and then getting more complicated as you go. Montanabw(talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping to do that with this structure, however I'm finding it challenging to do easy to hard without completely repeating sections. I think the "What white ISN'T" is pretty easy, and I've definitely ordered the sections under Inheritance from easy to hard. Countercanter (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I like what you have been doing so far. Sometimes you can repeat the sections and then another editor (s'moi?) can tweak for readability -- or even just letting it sit for a day or two can give you fresh eyes. I have trouble with redundancy with I write too...and sometimes redundancy can't be avoided. Montanabw(talk) 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Consistency questions

I have added a section on the differences between dominant white, sabino-white, and maximum sabino (as in, non SB1). Hopefully this means that my major work on this article is done, and I can get down to the finer details. So, I have some questions..

Where can I find/what are the Wikipedia conventions regarding:

When does punctuation fall outside quotation marks?
Should the names of individual horses be italicized?
Italics and capitalizations for genes and proteins?

Countercanter (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS is the big one. I do not have a clue on the genes and proteins stuff (check other articles that are well-written and see if you can spot a pattern), but I definitely know we do NOT italicize horse names. I personally will rarely to never put punctuation outside quotation marks, though there is an argument for a few times it can be done. I'd say always put it inside quotation marks and let the people who care point out the exceptions, if any. UC Davis appears to say "Sabino-White" to describe homozygous SB-1 horses, at least that's how I've read it in the past. "Maximum sabino" is a fairly meaningless phrase, usually used by people like the Sabino Arabian Association to describe horses that are about 50% white, but I'll peek it over. How about going over to Dana boomer or Ealdgyth's talk pages (or both of them) and ask them to do analysis. Always best to ask the friendlies before running the GA gauntlet. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I can answer the middle one, and that's no. Don't italicise horse names. I planned to ask Malleus to copyedit this for you when you go to FAC, so he can handle the first one (basically, the only time you put punctuation in the quotes is when you're doing a full sentence quotation, otherwise for some wild reason, we use "logical quotation" whatever the hell THAT means. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My two cents...

Per your request on my talk page, here are my two cents on the article. Please keep in mind that I'm not a genetics person, and so I'm probably missing any research-based errors, if indeed there are any present in the article.

  • The lead looks odd. One big paragraph and then three little ones. WP:LEAD says that for an article of this length, three to four paragraphs is good, so I'd suggest either expanding all of the paragraphs or combining two and expanding a third.
Hmm. I'll have to come back to this one. Hopefully a way to combine these paragraphs in a way that doesn't compromise the readability/informativeness will come to me.Countercanter (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest fixing the dab links in the article. See here for a list of them. It's not required at GA, but some reviewers are picky about it.
Done! Countercanter (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest adding a bit more sourcing to the article. Especially if you get a reviewer without a strong background in science, unsourced areas like the end of the ""White" horses that are not dominant white" intro paragraph and the Cremello and LWS bullets under the "Non-white colors" section will be red flags. In areas such as the "History of dominant white research", I would put the citation after the description of the research, rather than after the initial introduction of the study - thus making it obvious that the same citation covers the entire paragraph. When you have direct quotes, such as in the same history section, you need to have a citation directly after the quote. Also, obviously, there's still a citation needed tag in the history section.
I will have to spend some time on this. I left the cite tag at weissgraue, though I have changed the sentence around and didn't want to take it down just to put it up again. Is there a problem with the sentence as it is now? Countercanter (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As it is now, the reason for the sentence being included is a little confusing to me. Why is it significant that there is a distinction between the two words? Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Current Ref #23 (J. Sharon Batteate) is a self-published Geocities website, which is generally not considered reliable. Is Batteate a recognized expert on the subject, and if so, is it possible to find her info anywhere else, a journal article perhaps?
I used a different source. Batteate is an expert on the subject; her website is referenced as a source of information in the only publication on the subject that I know of, an AQHA Journal article. However, I did go ahead and change the source to a "registry" website. I could also conceivably quote the AQHJ article, but I feel like I had a reason not to...if only I could remember! Countercanter (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The registry info works. However, the article looks really good, so unless you remember why you didn't use it in the first place, I would say to go ahead and use that. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Molecular genetics section, you say "The KIT gene encodes a protein called steel factor receptor". Should this be "a steel factor receptor"?
No, just steel factor receptor. Countercanter (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The rest of the hidden comments should be resolved and/or removed.

Overall, this article looks fantastic - a very well-researched and well-written document. I'll be watching this page, so if you have any questions about my comments, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments...

Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Another note, I did not dig into the technical aspects of the prose. I'm not a geneticist, and couldn't possibly comment on the rightness or wrongness of the actual content past the basics. I strongly suggest GAN, then a peer review, then FAC, especially as this will be Counter's first run through the processes. You want outside non-scientist eyes on this to make sure it's understandable, as well as non-horse folks to make sure the jargon makes sense. When you're ready for that point, there are a few folks I can recommend for non-horse prose readings. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the article. I have a quick question which I hope can resolve some of the jargon. I added a separate "Notes" section. Would it be appropriate to make notes on technical concepts that recur throughout the article? For example, homozygous/homozygosity/homozygote. Allele, locus, mutation, gene, heterozygous, phenotype, genotype, dominant, recessive, maybe melanocyte. I will definitely use simpler terms and/or explain in the text, but for things that recur over and over and take a bit of explaining, it seems to me that this might help with the flow. Is this an inappropriate use of Notes? Countercanter (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It could be, I suppose. I was more worried about the horseman's jargon, honestly. For some reason, Wikipedia is more forgiving of general scientific jargon than it is of more specialized jargon. Check out the FACs for Easy Jet or Go Man Go to see where simple horse terms such as "dam" or "sire" get queried... heck, they even wanted to me explain "sired by" which last I checked was still a term used by people also! But topline, coronary band, etc. will trip folks up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
At this point, E, my thinking is to tune it up for GA standards in terms of readability and sourcing, etc... the FA gauntlet is pretty scary for me, personally... =:-O Montanabw(talk) 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but a lot of the sourcing is just easier to do if you keep in mind FAC reqs. Easier to replace it just once, rather than twice. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point for things that are changed. I was thinking more about maybe leaving a few sources unchanged (like the dun central site, I too have been digging high and low for that actual article elsewhere...) I am also dreading the thing of adding ALT tags to everything =:-O though, knowing some folks with visual impairments who use text readers, I DO see their value... Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If you get me at GAN (well, someone like me, I mean) the sources I questioned will be questioned there too. Better to be prepared. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Understood there. I think my question is more if the sources are inherently not acceptable or if we simply have to be ready to defend why they are...? The Duncentral appears to be the only place where we have found that particular article online, the appaloosa project is about the only place where we have found the data it cites... but I agree that it's probably worth finding something better than equusite if the data is out there. Problem with so much horse stuff is finding the source material... :-P Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All three probably need to go. The equisite one can probably be replaced with either U of Ok or UCDavis, they both have pretty decent color sites. Duncentral is reprinting stuff from the Quarter Horse Journal? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How does one satisfy the "expert" criteria? Are websites by experts appropriate? Nancy Castle, who authors/publishes Dun Central Station, is interviewed as an expert by the Paint Horse Journal for their [dun article]. What QHJ is Castle reprinting from? Her paper on dominant white/sabino is a lay review of the work done by Brooks, Haase, Rieder, Bailey, and so on. So I might be able to do without her. I like her synthesis of the material because it is easy to understand and because her readership is breeders and not scientists, she addresses some things that Haase et al wouldn't see the need to. On the other hand, I could also write to the authors of the 2007/2009 dominant white studies. Correspondence with an expert is permissible, right? As far as The Appaloosa Project, Sheila Archer runs the site and is one of the leaders in leopard complex research. I could, however, try to replace the AP cites with ones from the papers. Which of these solutions is best? I don't think it would be terribly difficult to replace these cites if expert websites are not allowed. Countercanter (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Generally, for this subject (a scientific one) you'd need to quote scientific papers to satisfy the expert criteria. The three sites would make excellent external links, but unless they are the personal sites of scientists researching the subject, they won't pass muster, unfortunately. Cite the papers, and put the websites in the external links is the best solution. Unfortunately, the WP:V criteria requires that information be published, and correspondence doesn't fulfill that, so writing the scientists won't help. (I run into this with the QH Hall of Fame stuff all the time. I have LOTS of unpublished research material in my files, but I can't cite it. For that matter, I can't cite my own books (which sucks) either....) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey E, I'LL cite your books and if I ever get anything published, you can cite mine! LOL! (Actually, don't tell, but I did cite something I wrote in a refs list, but not as a footnote. (Catch me if you can! LOL!)
CC and E: I think if we can find the cite to the QH journal, I see no problem with keeping a lay analysis when it IS in fact our source. I agree that the duncentral URL isn't the best cite, though, particuarly when they can change their site any time and dump the article in the process. Best to cite to original article if we can. (E: any idea if one can search the TOC of the Quarter Horse Journal online the way you can AHW??) The synthesis and application to practical purposes is needed, as well as plain English! In these horse color articles, our audience is laypeople, and there is SO much confusion -- even amongst breeders (the dominant white Arabian was being marketed as a "bay sabino" for several years before someone figured out he was a new and unique W mutation. Another example is about two years ago, I personally had a big edit war on one of the color articles with someone who claimed there was no W gene, only sabino-white). As CC suggests, often the magazine article does the synthesis of info that we at wiki aren't allowed to do per WP:NOR. I also think we need to just do what we can to defend the Appaloosa Project site unless Archer can toss us some peer-reviewed publications. When we were working on GA for Appaloosa, I think I found that same site and dug for something better, to no avail.
All that said, I haven't soloed anything to GA for a while, but I used to have some success just explaining WHY a certain thing was done, and simply getting questioned doesn't always mean it's tossed -- it just means you may need to discuss it a bit. I feel the same way about jargon. E and I mildly differ on that issue, I tend to defend the use of some terms of art. (Of course, she has way more GA and FA articles than I, plus I am also one to argue almost by instinct...so there's that too... oops...) Anyway, my two bits. Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Jumping back in: Dun Central Station isn't related to QHJ. Nancy Castle is a Morgan lady, and that synthesis is her own. I said she's cited as an expert on color genetics by PHJ. I'm not sure where QHJ came into this. I went ahead and changed the LP data to one of Archer et al's publications, and tossed the statement about grays being most often mistaken for "white." I'm not sure what to do about Castle. Countercanter (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Dun Central Station article is fine, personally. "PHJ"?? What acronym was that, again?? It might be challenged if you took this to featured article status, but I see no problem with it for GA, personally. Side rant: I've gotten fed up with ever trying to take a long or highly technical article to FA, I'll work to GA, but after that, I don't bother. Too many people who have no clue nitpicking over stupid things. Watching Ealdgyth being forced to change "sire" and "dam" to "father" and "mother" almost did me in. And the edit war that erupted when we tried to take Horses in warfare up to FA soured me permanently. I admire those who can run the gauntlet, but in my opinion, it's more about playing a game by Byzantine rules than actually promoting the best artices. JMO, of course). Montanabw(talk) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gear up for the gauntlet

Recent changes are working for me. Ealdgyth? Dana? Thoughts? Is this ready for someone outside WPEQ to look at? Can it go to GAN? Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Any chance of adding WP:ALT to images? Also the placement of one image cuts across a heading on my browser. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about horses, but a quick read through suggests that this is more than ready for GAN, and is a potential future FAC. One nitpick: deleterious (harmful) - either assume your reader knows what "deleterious" means, and omit the gloss, or assume they don't and just have "harmful". The current phrasing suggests "I know what deleterious means, but you might not", which I'm sure isn't your intention Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I see the value of ALT tags, I haven't figured out how to do them properly, but if no one else volunteers, maybe it's time I learn (grin)> Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
For most images, you just need to add a |alt=(text for your alt text) to the image, just as you would for a caption. Infoboxes are a bit trickier, because not all infoboxes support them yet. Check out Augustine of Canterbury or Gregorian mission to see some examples at work. (still working on getting the horse infobox to recognize alt text so that Easy Jet and Go Man Go are set). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I added them to this article. I hope it worked/I did it right. Countercanter (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but I"ll let E be the final decider! Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ready??

Check my latest round of tweaks, almost all were related to article organization. I flipped the non-dominant white section to go later in the article, and broke out lethal white within that section so it was out of the "non-white" group and in its own little world. I also added a few "main" and "see also" tags. Hope it all helped. Personally, I think the article is about as ready as it's going to be until we actually hit the gauntlet and discover something we overlooked entirely! I suggest that when you know you will be able to get on wiki daily for a week or so, that's the time to put it up for GA. When you do, alert me, Ealdgyth and Dana. Between four of us, if there are any problems that arise, we can keep the brushfires out. You will have to fix any sourcing problems, but the rest of us can tune up the little tweaky formatting things that people always find. We can also argue for and defend the work behind the article. So when you're ready, go to WP:GA and follow the instructions! Montanabw(talk) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dominant white/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • Support: I cannot review for GA as I was a secondary editor on this, but I think this article has been exceptionally well-researched by the nominator and it has been reviewed by at least two other veteran WIkiProject Equine editors as well, so it should be ready to pass GA muster. Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • hehehe, I'll take it into account. I will begin a look-over now and make any straightforward prose improvements - feel free to revert if I goof and inadvertently change the meaning. i will post any queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
One common problem in prose is trying to reduce repetition - e.g. in the first paragraph, "Dominant white" is repeated six times. Mostly this is necessary, but it helps ofr elegance of prose if we can reduce by one or two. Similarly, "breed" appears quite alot in the ext para. I will see what I can do.
Be worth noting in a couple of words who Pulos and Hutt are or where they're from.
The eponymous mutation produces a belly spot.. - eponymous means named after someone (?) which is not mentioned.
Eponymous: Hm, though it was a thing named after a thing, is it always a person? Worth a tweak if so... The referencing issues will be all CCs to fix, as she did the sourcing (and may be super busy this weekend, timing isn't great, patience may be required). I can probably work with all other tweaks. We appreciate your help and comments! Montanabw(talk) 06:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what it is referring to there. If we remove the adjective 'eponymous' is any meaning lost? (Looked it up, does mean after a person :)) - I think once that is done I will pass this as GA (and post some ideas for onwards to FAC) - good work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK with me. CC usually doesn't care too much about grammatical and style tweaks. Montanabw(talk) 07:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, we're done and over the line  Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?

That's it? Tis good? Wow!! Countercanter (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

'Tis indeed forsooth ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you so much for taking the time to read it. Countercanter (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Congrats CC! Very nice work on your first GA! Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You kicked serious butt, CC my dear! Way to go! (I'm tgging it in my "count" 'cause I did help some, if that's OK with you!). And thank you, Casliber, for a thoughtful, thorough and considerate review. Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some new studies about KIT

In the future, I would like to correct the tone of this article with regards to Sabino1. Currently, the article makes it sound as if Sabino1 and Dominant white have little to do with each other and that is incorrect. The only known difference is that Sabino1 is known to be viable in the homozygous state, while it is unclear which, if any, currently known dominant white alleles are viable in this sense. The phenotypes and etiologies are otherwise the same and they are variations of the same gene.

Beyond that, I came across a new paper from the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The article, "A novel KIT mutation results in piebaldism with progressive depigmentation" was actually published in 2001 but details a case of human piebaldism associated with continued loss of pigment, as has been observed in some dominant white horses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19968642 This study is of piebaldism/spotting in cattle and its relationship to KIT. I would be very interested to read this paper, especially as they found 111 polymorphisms of the gene in their group of cows. Countercanter (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back and your thoughts sound goodl! Go for it! I think the big thing is to be sure to address the lethality thing head-on, as there is the faction that likes to claim that there's no such thing as dominant white, that all "white" horses are "sabino white." Also, such as with the example of the dominant white Arab, to be sure to note that other stuff gets called "sabino" that isn't SB-1. Also, on that note, as SB-1 acts differently when homozygous and heterozygous, which is different behavior from dominant white. May be wise to also talk about that difference as well. Wonder if it's a good idea to cut and paste some sections into both this article and the sabino one. Is there a separate article on the KIT locus yet?? 111?!? Polymorphism (biology)?!! So roan and tobiano are the tip of the iceberg??? Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominant_white/Archive_1&oldid=1083501987"