Wikipedia:Peer review/Suffolk Punch/archive1

Suffolk Punch

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm listing this article because I would like to get it to FA status. I would like input on any aspects that are confusing to a non-horse person, as well as any areas where other editors feel that sourcing or prose are weak. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dr pda: Most of these relate to prose:

• You probably don't need the reference to the early 16th century in both the paragraphs in the lead. Also, in the history section it says that the first recorded mention is in the 15th century, not the 16th.
• Watch out for close repetitions—the last sentence of the first paragraph, and the first sentence of the next both start with the breed.
• Good doer (easy keeper) is probably too jargon-ish for the lead. I notice it's not used elsewhere in the article either. - Done.
• This resulted in the Suffolk Punch almost becoming extinct. This is a noun+ing phrase, which Tony doesn't like - Done.
• The idea of horses pulling a van or a bus struck me as a bit odd, as my first thought was of the motorised versions of these vehicles. I don't know how one would make it clearer. I did find this image at the Van article. - Added "non-motorized.
• They are always chestnut, and no other colour is considered for admission to the Stud Book. This seems logically inconsistent. If they are always ches(t)nut, how can there be other colours to be excluded from the Stud Book? Done.
• Although often grouped with the other British heavy draught breeds—the use of the other implies the Suffolk Punch is one of them, which makes the use of although sound odd. Also, this sentence is quite long, and could possibly benefit from being split. - Split sentence. Tweaked wording - it is a British heavy draft breed, so it is an "other", but is built a bit different, which is what we're trying to point out.
• feathering of the fetlocks jargon - Wikilinked feathering.
• At one point in their history, the Suffolk was often criticised—not sure if something can happen often at one point? Possibly drop the 'often'. - Changed to "in the past".
• introduction of foot classes at major shows needs more explanation - Done.
• led to an improvement of the breed's hooves, so they are now considered to have excellent foot conformation—what has excellent foot conformation, the hooves or the breed? - Done.
• The Suffolk Punch breed registry in England is the oldest English breed society, and the breed has the longest unbroken written pedigree of any horse breed. I'm not sure whether and appropriately expresse the connection between the two clauses. Does the Suffolk Punch have the longest pedigree because the breed registry is the oldest?
  • Reworded slightly. The pedigrees started being kept a couple of centuries before the breed registry was started. I can't seem to get the wording right without there being an "and" in between - I end up with about three "breed"s in the sentences. Everyone else please feel free to tweak.
    • We ended up tossing the pedigree part due to lack of backup sourcing and questionable material, so this becomes a moot point.
• John Camden's Britannica, published in the 15th century—are you sure you don't mean William Camden's Britannia published in 1586, i.e. the 16th century? - Fixed (my bad).
• Eastern Counties probably shouldn't be capitalised. - Done.
• still recognisable in the same form today—are both 'still' and 'today' needed? - Done.
• Another bottleneck occurred again in the late 18th century—um, Crisp's horse was foaled in 1773, which is late 18th century by my count. Did another bottleneck occur after him? Also 'another' and 'again' are not both needed.
  • Fixed another/again. Crisp's horse was actually foaled in 1768 (I checked the sources and changed it), so I think the "late 18th century" means again after that, maybe the 1790s or so? I'm not really sure, as the source doesn't elaborate.
• In two quotations the spelling color is used. The article is written in British English; did the sources of the quotes use color rather than colour?
  • Yes, both sources were in US English and used "color", and we sifted through MOS until we found a spot telling us not to change the British/American usage in quotes, no matter which one the article was in.
• the breed also received contributions slightly jargon-ish - Done.
  • I'm stuck on how to re-word this. Anyone else want to take a swing at it?
• Although other breeds were introduced in an attempt to increase the size and stature of the breed 'introduced' is slightly jargon-ish here, and the second occurrence of 'breed' could possibly be replaced with 'Suffolk Punch' for clarity.
• Is 'importations' common usage? - Reworded.
• Why did the Suffolk Punch gain popularity in the 1930s? - Expanded.
• the breed has experienced a revival of interest perhaps better as there has been a revival of interest in the breed, since it's not the horses' interest which has revived. - Done.
• The last paragraph of the History section flip-flops between the British and American societies which is a little confusing, though I can see it is trying to follow the chronological order.
• Although their population has continued to rise, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust of the U.K. considers their survival status critical—presumably it's not the population of the Trust which is increasing :) This needs rephrasing. - Done.
• In the past, the Suffolk Punch was used mainly for draught work on farms, and were also often used to pull heavy artillery in wartime. The verb should be consistently singular or plural. - Done.
• Oppenheimer consistently dealt with Suffolk Punches—does 'consistently dealt' mean 'specialised in selling'? - Done.
• the Vladimir Heavy Draft, a draft breed—should this be 'a draught breed'?
• Page ranges in the citations should use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-). - Done.
• You mention you want to take this to FA. It may be challenged due to its length, as it's on the short side, (8 kB, 1447 words), so you should be able to show that it is comprehensive. I don't know enough about the subject to say if there are any glaring omissions. About 40 shorter article have made FA though, so it's not impossible.
• I also don't know enough to judge the quality of the sources, but are the Dorling Kindersley books adults' or children's? (I know they publish a lot of children's non-fiction).
  • Well, Elwyn Hartley Edwards is a prolific and much quoted author on horse subjects. The Horses title is from the Smithsonian Handbooks series, probably think "general adult non-fiction for the non-specialist". Here's the Amazon.com page on it, which says its from the DK Adult line. The second EHE book is here at Amazon.com, and it also lists the publisher as DK Adult, so I'd guess that it's the same sort of generalist handbook thing. I have seen the first book, not the second, but in general I trust EHE's works. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. If they do, you may like to consider reviewing an article from Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog, which is where I found this one. Dr pda (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)