Wikipedia:Peer review/Andalusian horse/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Andalusian horse[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FAC in the (relatively) near future, and would like further suggestions for what to improve. Since the main people working on this article are all experienced horse-folk, input on any places where the article is jargon-heavy would be especially appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems almost ready for FAC, and I enjoyed reading it. I know little about horses, so experts in the field might see things that I've missed. On the other hand, I had next to no trouble with the jargon. I have only two concerns that I consider significant: one has to do with the logical arrangement of the "Early development" subsection, and the other has to do with the legal complications arising from the Pure Spanish Horse court case. Otherwise my concerns are of the nitpicky sort and should be easy to deal with.


  • "There are currently fewer than 20,000 Andalusians worldwide, including around 4,500 in the United States." - I'd delete "currently" as redundant and no more specific than "are".
  • "There are several competing registries that keep records on the Andalusian/PRE. - I think "or" would be better than the front slash.
    • Maybe if the slash is the problem, the term "and" would be best because both terms describe the breed. The deal is that the PRE people are sort of the hardcore bloodline purists and don't play nicely with everyone else, but yet, really, the PRE IS the Andalusian, it's a political correctness issue, but one that matters A LOT to those who care. Does this modify your thinking? Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Follow up: I did a bit of rephrasing that killed the slash but I think kept the nuance. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "They were originally used for classical dressage... " - Maybe "These horses" rather than "they" since otherwise "they" seems to refer to the singular word "breed" in the preceding sentence in the text.
Fixed. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "Today, Andalusians are used for many equestrian activities... ". - Maybe "In the 21st century" rather than "today"?
rephrased. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Breed characteristics

  • "They are both elegant and strongly built." - Delete "both" as redundant?
    • Not really, a lot of strongly-built horses are therefore butt-ugly! This is sort of a "brawn AND beauty" thing. How can we get there with better phrasing? Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "The breed tends to have clean legs with no propensity for malformation, and energetic gaits." - Slightly awkward since it might be misread to say "no propensity for energetic gaits". Maybe "The breed tends to have clean legs, capable of energetic gaits, with no propensity for malformation."
    • Good point. Rephrased. Tossed the bit about malformation altogether as being quite obvious. (Of course no one wants to breed a horse with malformed legs, after all)Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "A cobra of Andalusians – a group of mares shown by a single handler" - I've never seen "cobra" used in that way. Does it literally mean "a group of mares shown by a single handler"? If not, would it be possible to add a very brief definition or to link to one?
    • Agreed. Even as a horse person, that one was new to me! Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Follow up:' Fixed, I hope.
  • "Today, around 80% of all Andalusians are gray." - The Manual of Style recommends "percent" rather than the % symbol in simple cases like this. Ditto for other instances of % in the article.
    • OK, changed them all to the word "percent." Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Early development

  • The chronology in this subsection is not linear and seems a bit hodge-podge-y. The sentences are individually interesting and well-supported, but it's not clear why the Cavendish quote, for example, precedes the mention of Henry VIII or the sentence that says, "By 1576, Spanish horses made up one third of British royal studs at Malmesbury and Tutbury." Would it be better to arrange the material chronologically?
    • Will look at it -- a lot of the original organization here was mine, not Dana's and I may have been pretty scattered! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      Follow up: The problem was that there was a jump between the development of the breed and its dissemination throughout the rest of Europe. I created a new subheading that might clarify matters. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

19th century to present

  • "This was partially due to increasing mechanization and changing needs within the military that called for both horses with more speed in cavalry charges and horses with more bulk for pulling gun carriages." - Delete "both" as redundant?

Pure Spanish horse

  • "charging that the Ministry of Spain’s transfer of the PRE Libro de Origen to ANCCE is illegal, and in early 2009, the courts decided on behalf of UCCE" - Since two ministries seem to be at odds with one another, I found this sentence confusing. Should this say "Spanish Ministry of Agriculture"? Yet a subsequent sentence says, "By giving ANCCE sole control of the stud book, Spain’s Ministry of Defense was acting in a discriminatory manner, according to the court." Further confusion. Would it be possible to re-write this section to clarify the relationships among the two ministries, the Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse or PRE Mundial, the Cria Caballar, and the UCCE?
    • Worth a look, good catch. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC). Follow up': I did some rewording. Basically, the Cria Caballar was the original government agency in charge of the PRE studbook until the Spanish Government turned it over to the ANCCE, which pissed off everyone else and they sued. We are going to have to clarify what the UCCE is, also, but that will take going back into our research, I don't have it off the top of my head. (Dana?). Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


  • I see a couple of m-d-y dates in the citations that should be changed to yyyy-mm-dd to conform to the others. Citation 65 seems to have one; citation 50 has one; I'm not sure I caught them all.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite. And feel free to comment further! Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)