Talk:Horses in Sudan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: A455bcd9 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Typo: "There The". Per MOS:CONTEXTLINK, add links to terms and notions like arrival of nomadic Muslim tribes, Darfur, horse racing, British colonial, South Sudan, etc. (I would also add links in the body: Nubian, Blue Nile, White Nile, polo, Khartoum region, mares, Arabian horses, environmental and ecological crisis, jockeys, etc.)
Fixed. I think additional links may be added (for instance Maisir) but it is no needed for GAN. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Messiria tribe, Rizeigat tribe, etc. Again, it's a "bonus", not needed for GA, but would be nice. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Are horsereporter.com, theequinest.com and horsehints.org RS? What about exarc?

Please expand "Nissen, p. 41." and "Azevedo, Roots of Violence, p. 54" and add some page numbers as well to enable readers to verify statements. Can you please add page number for Fisher 1973?
Thanks for Nissen and Azevedo. You removed {{page needed}} for Fisher (why?). There's still one "page needed" after Notable confusion includes the "Godolphin Arabian," actually a Tunisian Barbarin, foundational to the Thoroughbred breed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify The use of cavalry seems historically rare, infantry being preferred.. The source says that heavy cavalry was rare and that camelry was preferred but that then (when?) "the switch to horses as battle began increased speed". And even later on the article we have During the 13th and 14th centuries, cavalry became an important factor in the area., and Mounted warfare was a prominent feature of Sudanese military strategies. Horses served as cavalry, offering not only mobility but also the ability to charge into enemy lines with force. Cavalry units were known for their speed and manoeuvrability and Only the wealthy and powerful could own horses, and rulers like the Soso king Soumaoro Kanté showcased their authority through impressive cavalries..

I could not verify Cavalry units were known for their speed and manoeuvrability, making them a formidable presence on the battlefield. with the source provided.
Still an issue here, unless I misunderstood something? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the source mentions different type of cavalry, "heavy cavalry role by delivering shock action on the battlefield.", "Hussars were light cavalry mounted on fast horses.", and "Small, light, fast horses were used to scout" .. The sentence is a summary of that FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For On the other hand, it is certain that the horse was not used, or only very little, as an agricultural aid. I found a related excerpt in the source, but the source is about Central Sudan. Can we infer that this was true for the rest of Sudan? Unless you find a source for the whole Sudan, I would maybe write instead "On the other hand, the horse was not used, or only very little, as an agricultural aid in Central Sudan." ("it is certain that" is unnecessary) But it is weird as it is later written Beyond their role in warfare, horses were essential for agricultural activities and transportation. They aided in ploughing fields and moving goods, contributing significantly to Sudan's agrarian economy. Horses provided the necessary power for these tasks in regions with challenging terrain..
Thanks for the fix, I think there's still an issue with Beyond their role in warfare, horses were essential for agricultural activities and transportation. as the source seems to only cover Western Sudan. What about the rest of Sudan (besides Western and Central)? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the other source covers central Sudan. Anyway removed it, as the information is duplicated at the beginning of the section itself. Sorry with the merger I remove much of the duplication but not all of it FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added two cn tags.

in his study of domestic livestock in Sudan: do this include South Sudan? It should be made clear in the whole article whether you refer to present-day Sudan or the greater Sudan region.

In general, sometimes the article has one ref for each sentence, which is perfect for verification. Sometimes there's only one ref for a long paragraph. Although it is not mandatory, I would recommend to try (it's not always possible) to have one ref per sentence and one sentence per ref.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
How is In 2004, on the border between Sudan and Chad, mounted militias terrorised the population.[8] Many are Janjawid, pro-Arab government militiamen. related to the topic? Why is Horse racing both in its own subsection and in "Culture"? (Sudanese culture celebrates horses through various festivals and events. Horse racing, for example, is a popular and vibrant tradition in Sudan.) I would move "Warfare" into "History" and Merge "Usage" and "Culture"
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
"Horse racing in Khartoum, in 2007": such a beautiful photo!
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I think it should be easy to fix these issues. I'll put my review on hold.

thanks for the comments. Fixed the wikilinks, merged the sections as recommended, expanded the required citation, removed text without citation, and provided pages. Amended the text for the spot checks and:

horsereporter.com: looks reliable. Well updated and seem to have a good editorial standard.
theequinest.com: not sure about this one, removed it including the sentence sourced to it.
horsehints.org: on the verge about this one. Seem to be used in horses articles across Wikipedia, and the website has a wealth of information but can remove it with the sentence.
EXARC Journal: It is a journal that looks reliable. Open access and linked to EuroRAE (International Council Museums). It looks fine.

I covered all of your points but please feel free to check and raise more issues if you see any. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I checked horsereporter.com again: there's no information about their editorial standard on the website and it looks like their only journalist is their CEO: https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=Horsereporter.com&sid=TiM => Not RS for me. Please find another source or remove the related statement(s).
Yes I agree, removing theequinest.com was a good call, thanks.
It looks like Debora Johnson's blog => Not RS. Unless Debora Johnson is reliable herself in the field?
EXARC Journal: OK.

Let me go through other points... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few issues. I mentioned them above. In addition to that, I could not verify the following statements using the following ref:

Mounted warfare was a prominent feature of Sudanese military strategies. Horses served as cavalry, offering not only mobility but also the ability to charge into enemy lines with force. Cavalry units were known for their speed and manoeuvrability, making them a formidable presence on the battlefield. They played a crucial role in various campaigns and conflicts, contributing to Sudan's military successes. [1]
In the 20th century, colonial breeding policy promoted the importation and then breeding of imported English and Arabian Thoroughbred horses, giving rise to breeds such as the Tawleed, which still races on the Khartoum racecourse. [2]
Like other countries in North Africa and the Middle East, the Khartoum region is hit by epidemics of African horse sickness, which causes high horse mortality. 85% of the Sudanese horses studied were, directly or indirectly, exposed to this virus. [3]
Beyond their role in warfare, horses were essential for agricultural activities and transportation [4]
Sudan's horse culture dates back centuries, with horses being highly prized and associated with wealth and power. [5]
Sudanese culture celebrates horses through various festivals and events. [6]

Basically, every single statement I checked failed to be verified. So unless I made a mistake, this is not reassuring... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mounted warfare was a prominent feature of Sudanese .. I think the confusion is coming from the fact that the source is mainly about Colonial Britain, an not Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. This is not mentioned verbatim but can be understood from the text without the need to specify different heavy, light, scout cavalry units.
In the 20th century, colonial breeding policy promoted the. I admit the last part of the sentence ", which still races on the Khartoum racecourse" is what you see in the image (editorialising from my part which is now removed) but the rest of the sentence can be verified from that ref. the 20th century is when the Anglo-Egyptian occupation of Sudan started (1899–1956). Anyway the whole sentence is removed.
Like other countries in North Africa and the Middle East, ... The whole sentences is properly sourced except the 85% which should have been 90%. I changed it to "the majority" according to the same source which states "Of the world’s horse population, only about 10% live in countries deemed free of equine piroplasmosis;"
Beyond their role in warfare, horses were .. removed the sentence as it is already sources at the start of the section. The reference belongs to the culture significance section, maybe misplaced when I was moving things
Sudan's horse culture dates back centuries, again not verbatim but the article mentions "They constitute an historic legacy, particularly for some ethnic groups", "The families renowned for horse breeding and horsemanship in Khartoum include those of Imam Al-Mahdi, late statesman Al-Azhary, Mamoun Ahmed Mekky, Muntasir Abdul A'al, Kaboky, al-Waleed Madibo and many other families." these are wealth and powerful families
Sudanese culture celebrates horses through various ... again I cannot include things verbatim as "The Sudanese people maintain a strong passion for horses and they often mention those domesticated animals in their traditional ardent poems and songs gleefully listened to by every Sudanese."
removed "horsereporter", found a good source at Barb horse
removed "horsehints.org" with the sentence (could not find a source)

FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher is an article, normally you do not need a page for that FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there were too many failed verifications (editorializing based on an image, OR, SYNTH, and approximations [Sudan vs Central or Western Sudan]), etc.) for me to feel confident and support => Fail :(

I recommend you make sure that each sentence is properly sourced (with one ref after each sentence or even part of sentence, again, not mandatory but it makes things so much easier for reviewer and even for you when you work on the article and copy/cut parts but then risk mixing up the refs. Also for future editors. And of course for WP:FAC one day...) and then renominate the article. It's totally doable and I'm sure the article will be amazing soon and that the second nomination will be a success! :)

Yes, Fisher is an article but after "on the territory of Sudan well before the arrival of nomadic Muslim tribes from the" you added the page number, so why not for the other? For sure it's not mandatory to add page numbers but per WP:BURDEN: "Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)". And per WP:GACN: "Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when [...] it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)." Fischer is 25-page long, and given the issues of verifiability in the rest of the article, it seems necessary to me to do a bit more than the GA minimum here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9 You could have asked for a second opinion. I really think you jumped the gun here. What you call failed verification I have showed to be a failure of understanding how summaries works. I showed that 6 times! You either didn’t read ny rebuttal or choose to ignore it

Burden is not about page numbers is about the source reliability. We already discussed this and I removed three sources with the sentences

I really see this process as a good way to improve articles without dictating your interpretation of policies. And when you are challenged, you should normally seek a second opinion not just stick to yours. See Talk: Electron diffraction/GA2 for example FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Per WP:GAN/I#R3 I should have started with the verifiability and it should have been a quick fail.

Another user (@Grorp) has just edited the article removing an unreliable source containing gibberish and two sources fail to verify.

This confirms that the article was definitely not at the GA standard.

So there's no need for a second opinion when the article is that bad. Second opinion is If you are unsure whether an article meets the good article criteria, you may call for another reviewer or subject expert to provide a second opinion (WP:GAN/I#2O). But I'm quite sure the article does not meet the GA criteria. Grorp's recent edits confirm my choice, and this is somehow a second opinion if you really wanted one... So instead of complaining: improve the article and re-nominate it later.

Your "rebuttal" was not one. It was not my "failure of understanding how summaries works" (what a joke) but you inventing things (from your own admission: I admit the last part of the sentence ", which still races on the Khartoum racecourse" is what you see in the image (editorialising from my part which is now removed)). For instance with horses being highly prized and associated with wealth and power cannot be verified by "The families renowned for horse breeding and horsemanship in Khartoum include those of Imam Al-Mahdi, late statesman Al-Azhary, Mamoun Ahmed Mekky, Muntasir Abdul A'al, Kaboky, al-Waleed Madibo and many other families." as you claimed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to weigh in here; consider it an unsolicited second opinion. During this review, FuzzyMagma swapped two poor citations the reviewer caught (theequinest.com, horsehints.org) for a worse one (horseranger.com). FuzzyMagma argued for the keeping of exarc.net on the basis of RS when that source wasn't even on topic (dung as fuel, not consumption of horses as meat).

So I stepped in and removed 4 citations and their related content. Investigating the source of the errors, two had come straight from the French wiki article; the others FuzzyMagma had taken from the English wiki Tawleed article (which I'll fix or tag later).

FuzzyMagma started this article from translating it from a French article, but I have noticed recently that the French Wikipedia seems pretty lax in their sourcing standards, because almost all of the French-to-English translations recently done for the Open Knowledge Association (OKA) project (on the subject of horses) have been problematic when evaluated under English Wikipedia standards. FuzzyMagma doesn't appear to be an OKA editor, but the source (French wiki) and topic (horse) are simply coincidental and the only reason I looked twice at this article at all.

Since FuzzyMagma has been pushing back against this reviewer, I checked xtools to get a better feel for the editor. I see that 6 of the over-200 articles FuzzyMagma created are GA-rated, all different reviewers. Five were pretty straightforward; one was a little contentious. Lots of B-class articles. I noticed that most of the articles are related to Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics.

So I would chalk it up to FuzzyMagma taking citations from other articles at face value combined with probably not having sufficient horse experience/knowledge to evaluate sources as well as they have done for other topics. I could be wrong, but that's my estimation of how this review (and article) went off the rails. If FuzzyMagma wants to consider a future GA review for Horses in Sudan, I would recommend first checking every single citation in the article to ensure it is a reliable source and actually verifies the content. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting around to working on the Tawleed article, and I discover that FuzzyMagma actually put those crappy citations into BOTH articles. [7] [8] He didn't simply negligently copy them from some 'other' article, as I earlier presumed. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp I'm also concerned about the (lack of) quality of their edits... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]