Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Percheron/1

Percheron[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result:

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: keepThis was originally nominated due to stability issues, but the nominator was partly responsible for causing the instability. The missing references were covered in other sources and multiple sources are not needed for uncontroversial statements. Of the final list; the neutrality claim relating to regional bias is weak (France is mentioned prominently in the article), the units argument is not part of the criteria, the broadness criteria does not have to cover every major fact and raising exponentially as a peacock word is minor. As this looks like a disruptive nomination and no solid arguments for delisting are presented I am closing it as keep. Feel free to take any other concerns to the talk page or improve the article yourselves AIRcorn (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article no longer meets good article criterion number 5, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". There has been edit-warring ([1], [2], [3]) over content between two editors, of which I regret that I am one. I suggest that it be de-listed until that matter is resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking over it quickly there looks to be less sources and references than I typically expect on a GA, and much less than on the other horse GAs.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JLAN, the cure for stopping stability problems when you are one of the problem editors is easy - stop edit warring (and discuss on the talk page). I've removed your unit tag because all units are given in hands, inches and cm for height and pounds and kg for weight - very balanced. Inches are needed for non-horsey American and other inches users, and hands are given first when the source does that. Rafiki, I've removed the cn tags you added. In all of the areas you tagged, the information is covered by the next reference - I know, because I wrote the prose and had the sources in front of me (since returned to the library, but I checked the history to make sure that nothing had been added later that wasn't in the source). We don't need references after every sentence, and everything in the article is sourced.

On a more general subject, Tsaag and I are working on the article (or will be, once I get a few free minutes), with an eye towards heading for FAC sometime this winter. While more information on all subjects needs to be added, I'm not sure that the globalize tag is justified at the moment. At this point, over 2,000 new horses are registered in the US every year. According to the French stud book, they received less than 800 applications for registration in 2010. While the breed originated in France, they also have an extensive history in the United States. There is also information on their use in Britain in the article, as well as their export to and use in other countries.

In summary, I don't think this GAR is justified. Also, the article is currently being worked on, with an eye on FAC, so it will continue to improve over the next few months. However, at this point, the article fully meets the GA criteria, in my opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a POINTy move, it's unclear why you would jump to a reassessment rather than discussing this on the talk page Jebus989 ^✰ 15:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - If thats the case then I would then say theres the risk of sections relying too much on one source. If possible it would be good to see statements confirmed by some references independant of the existing references. With some of the sources coming from the breed orgs themselves confirming more of the statements from less partial sources would seem fair. Like with the UK advertising and publicity statement the visibility of those areas would surely mean an additional example wouldnt be hard to find.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular request is not only made in extraordinarily bad faith, but judging by the editing patterns of JLAN and Rafiki, I believe we have a case of potential meatpuppetry. It has been a long-settled issue that units for measuring horses are given in hands, JLAN raised this issue at WPEQ and lost rather overwhelmingly, JLAN has also been exhibiting a strong tendency to raise issues that are opposed by others and then twisting the words and viciously attacking those people (particularly yours truly) when they disagree with him. This particular request is very "pointy" indeed, and should be dismissed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiki - I'm confused. You placed one banner and two citation needed tags. The banner was in the "20th century and today" section and I am assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it was referring mainly to the first paragraph, which is sourced all to one source. This source is a book specifically about heavy horses, written by a neutral third-party expert author. One of the citation needed tags was on another sentence sourced to that same book, and the other was to a sentence sourced to another book by a reputable (and neutral) equine author. Neither of these sources are published by breed organizations, nor do the authors (as far as I know) have any bias (either pro or con) related to the breed. Do you question the source on the UK advertising and publicity statement? There is no reason to add an extra reference just because, and this is (again, as far as I know) not a contentious statement. This author has been kind enough to sum up the Percheron's uses in a very thorough manner, and I see no reason not to use her to as the sole source. Again, there is absolutely no policy-based reason to use multiple sources for a non-contentious statement - just pick a good, high quality source (like the one currently in use) and stick with it. Are there any points sourced to the breed organizations that you feel are contentious? At this point, it rather seems that you are asking for more references just to have more little blue numbers in the text - you have yet to bring up a contentious statement or a reference that you believe to be false. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for this ridiculous reassessment. I suggest that the nominator simply stops edit warring. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As above, if we reassessed evert GA or FA for this level of disagreement the corresponding boards would be very busy places. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if no-one has any further bilious remark to add, perhaps we could look at the article itself? I see the following problems:

It does not remotely meet criterion 4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each". As it stands, it suffers from strong regional bias: quite disproportionate importance is given to the United States in this article on what is a rather famous French horse. Comments above by User:Dana boomer appear to confirm that this bias is not just acknowledged, but in some way justified. I disagree. Specifically, the second paragraph of the lead section begins for no obvious reason with a discussion of the American breed registry; inexplicably, priority is given in the Characteristics section of the text to the American breed standard over that of the country of origin; in the History section, about 90% of the 19th century sub-section and all of that on the 20th century deals with the horse in Britain and the United States.
The question of units of measurement and conformity to WP:UNIT does not form part of the Good article criteria. However, the priority given in this article to a customary unit (which would be entirely appropriate in an article on a topic with strong regional ties to Britain or the United States) serves to reinforce the regional bias towards those areas.
Although the material on the Percheron in the United States is extensive, it is also far from impartial. In particular, there is no account of the very interesting confusion and controversy over the registration as Percherons of draught horses of uncertain origin in the fifty years or so prior to 1934, as discussed in detail, for example, by Margaret Elsinor Derry, Horses in society: a story of animal breeding and marketing, 1800-1920; detailed but not necessarily impartial history of part of this period is in Sanders, A history of the Percheron horse. It is to be expected that the Percheron Horse Association of America, obviously an interested party, should make claims such as "Over 70% of the purebred draft horses in America were Percherons"; it is not to be expected that such claims should be copied verbatim here, particularly in view of the previous rather chequered history.
On a trivial level, "exponentially" is a WP:PEACOCK word – unless of course there is a reliable source confirming that the growth may be described by the function y = e^x?

I see the following possible solutions:

Rewrite, condense and reorganise most of the material relating to the Percheron in Britain and the United States into separate and suitably-titled sections, with another for the Percheron in the other 15 or more countries in the world where it is represented, and expand the remaining matter to cover the breed in general and in France. Or,
As has already been suggested by User:Tsaag Valren, split this article into two, the present one and a new one for the American Percheron, where the criticisms of regional bias and so on above would have no relevance whatsoever.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JLAN, your continued use of language such as "bilious" demonstrates quite clearly that you still seem to have difficulties with WP:AGF. Please cease this tendentious, meaningless argument for the sake of argument. You are making distinctions without a difference where the breed has a worldwide impact and the different nations clearly recognize one another's bloodstock as purebred, even if they have varying priorities for the breed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.