I've been slowly working on this article, on an unusually-colored American draft horse breed, for the past couple of years. It's been through GAN (it's currently a GA) and a great PR by Ruhrfisch. Although it's a bit shorter than my usual FA candidates, I think it's complete, and I have incorporated all sources I've been able to find about the breed. Although I am a Wikicup competitor, this article will not be used to claim points, as most of the work was done prior to 2012. Thanks in advance for any and all comments! Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"It is known for its cream color and amber eyes, produced by the champagne gene; the gene, when combined with a chestnut base color, creates the cream color known as "gold champagne".": I'm a little confused. Does this say the same thing (or close enough)? "It is known for its amber eyes and for its "gold champagne" color, a cream shade produced by the "champagne" gene combined with a chestnut base color." - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Almost, but not quite, but I see the awkwardness problem. Hmmm ... Both traits are because of the champagne gene, and the cream color is mimicked by other genes (very similar to palomino, except it's produced by a completely different mechanism). The amber eyes can be seen on any of the champagne shades, the cream color is the gold champagne variant based on the horse genetically having an underlying chestnut coat.. Hmmm. What does everyone think of "It is known for its cream color, known as "gold champagne," produced by the champagne gene acting upon a chestnut base color, and its amber eyes, also characteristic of the champagne gene." ??? I'll change it, but I won't complain if you change it back. --Montanabw
Hey Montana. Giants, any thoughts here? - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd get rid of the first word in the second use of "champagne gene" to minimize the redundancy, but other than that it looks reasonable. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
got rid of second use. Does it look OK now? --MTBW
Works for me, I moved just one comma. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"Around 1935, however,": What does the "however" mean here? What's in opposition to what?
Thanks for the support - I don't usually see you on biology articles :) I appreciate the copyediting (my prose needs all the help it can get) and believe I have addressed both of the comments above. On the first, I replaced the existing text with your proposed wording; on the second, the "however" was meant to contrast the upswing in linebreeding with the previous discussion on a lack of buyers during the Depression - I have clarified this. Please let me know if you find anything else, and thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks great, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks also, Dank. This is mostly Dana's gig, but I was around and the too-complicated wording is probably my fault! Will try to fix anything I can. LOL! Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa: If the last two words aren't capitalized as part of an official title, the sub-section heading shouldn't have them capitalized. If they are, that should be reflected in the text.
I see "mid-20th century" in the lead and "mid 20th century" in the body. These should be made consistent in regards to the hyphenation; I'd include them, but that preference isn't strong, and it's more important that they be handled similarly.
1990s to the present: "and as of 2006 there is breeding program...". Needs "a" before "breeding".
Refs 12 and 20 could use the PDF designations that ref 2 has.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Giants! I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Provisional support – All of my comments have been resolved, and I believe this meets most of the FA criteria. I'll hold off on full support until the images have been checked, but the provisional can be considered struck once that happens. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! An image review has now been completed below, by Nikki. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare formatting on FN 10 vs 14
I'm probably being completely blind, but I can't see any difference in the formatting between these two. :( Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
FN 11: is this a shortened journal name?
Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki :) I can't find the problem in your first point, could you please explain further? I believe I have addressed the final three points - please let me know if I missed anything. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"It is known for its cream color, known as "gold champagne", produced by the champagne gene acting upon a chestnut base color, and its amber eyes, also characteristic of the gene. The only other color found in the breed is chestnut." Perhaps:
"It is known for its cream color, gold champagne, produced by the actions of the champagne gene upon a chestnut base color, and for its amber eyes, also characteristic of the gene; the only other color found in the breed is chestnut."
Perhaps a comma after "disease", and after "breed" (since there's more than one "and" hanging around there). Could it be "was developed in Iowa"? Slighty ambiguous at the moment, grammatically. Maybe "became" is better than "went" in formal language; or even "was". Retain "both" only if it's pretty unusual for both institutions to consider a breed critical.
"is reputed" ... you need to distance WP from that claim, when others are boldly made in the vicinity? All appear to be adequately reffed.
There are a lot of ranges in one para: I've tried en dashes to make it easier ... does it work? Tony(talk) 05:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, Tony. I made most of your suggested changes to the color sentence, although I kept "known as" because I think it's clearer. Moving on to the rest: Why would there be a comma after disease? Added a comma after breed, tweaked the Iowa sentence, changed "went" to "became", removed "both", clarified "is reputed". The en dashes look good, thanks for adding them - I always forget that feature of the conversion templates. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; but can you find a way of avoiding "known ... known as"? Tony(talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps "called gold champagne"? Dana boomer (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This has been tweaked - please let me know if there is anything else that you would like to see. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Crisco 1492:
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Support - I'm not going to pretend to understand horse breeding, but for a lay person such as myself it seems fairly complete. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL, that's OK - sometimes horse people don't even understand horse breeding. Thanks for the support! Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Delegate note -- Hi Dana, can you point out to me a recent spotcheck of sources on one of your noms at FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it's probably time for another then -- I think I'll just take care of it myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
FN1 (all instances): Required full page range of the cited chapter, not just the first page -- actioned.
FN8: No issues.
FN12: Article reads the hair coat, skin, and freckling appear to be lighter, but the eye color is not; source reads The hair coat, the skin, and the freckling appear to be lighter on the homozygous champagnes, but the eye color is not -- phrasing seems a bit close to me, think you can do something with it?
FN19: No issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ian! I've played with the wording from FN12 - you are quite correct that it was a too close, and I'm not sure how that slipped by me. I'm not sure if I made a grammatical mess out of it, though (running a bit short on sleep!), so I'd appreciate it if you could take a look! Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Slight tweak only. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.