The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 22:37, 22 June 2012 [1].

New Forest pony[edit]

New Forest pony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Pesky (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is likely to meet the criteria; it's just been reviewed by Malleus for GA and he says he thinks it has a "good chance". Pesky (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I have just reviewed a different horse article I gave this a quick once-over. I have not carried out an in-depth prose check, but here are a few mainly minor points:-

Lead
  • That's from the official breed standard; The New Forest pony is a pure breed, with a closed stud book. (Not all ponies grazing on the New Forest are New Forest ponies.) If they "happened not to be", they would be a very poor example of the breed.
  • Changed to "should be". I think that reads better.  Done
  • Can fix, no probs.  Done (I think!)
  • 50 miles is a short distance in terms of wild animal populations, which is what we're talking about here (prehistoric horse remains very close to where the current breed originated).
  • I'll think about that one; "steadily" has nuances (for me) of no drops at all in population, whereas there were minor fluctuations. Done
  • OK, I can tweak that. Done
Outside the lead
  • The official breed name is the New Forest pony; "New Forester" is a colloquialism.
  • Query: if we can't use a colloquialism, and sentences shouldn't begin with pronouns, and too many paragraphs begin with "New Forest ponies" ... what are possible solutions?
  • Tweaked those about.  Done
  • Ahh, I'll take another look!
  • Is that the one about other countries having their own breed societies and stud books? I did have a "See external links" there, but it was removed. Not sure quite how to deal with that one; it's obvious that it's verifiable just by clicking on the many different countries' organisations in the external links section, but finding a RS for something as obvious as that may not be as simple as it sounds!
  • It was me that tossed the link to the external links (can change and can't really cite to in-wiki) so I just now made a footnote with a bunch of the links. Hope the formatting is OK for that. --Montanabw
  • Yup, I'll fix any of those I find! Done
  • Horses have more than one gait. Walk, trot, canter and gallop for the New Forest ponies; other breeds pace, amble, tölt, etc.
  • And within that, sometimes more than one form, particularly in the trot. --Montanabw. I think it's OK as is.
  • OK, I'll go through standardising those. Well, that's very strange. It appears that different citation templates capitalise it differently, so standardising those is not a simple job! Has nobody encountered this before? Done
  • It's the ((citation| ...)) template which throws the lower-case "r". The {cite ***| ...)) templates throw upper-case "R". Someone needs to fix the "citation" one!

Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian! Pesky (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I just don't know. It is missing taxonomy data and other info, but it is well written so I will !vote neutral. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox includes Equus ferus caballus (same as Appaloosa, which is a FA, etc.) Just clarifying – New Forest pony is a breed, not a subspecies. All modern horses with the exception of Przewalski's horse are Equus ferus caballus.
  • Agreed, not a species. --Montanabw
  • Heh! There were parentheses inside the citation, which also adds them. D'oh! Fixewd.  Done
  • Ah, yes, they were in a paragraph which I cut (on other prehistory stuff). I've removed those. Done
  • Oooh, not sure about those. The fact that several other countries have their own breed societies and stud books is mentioned in the article, and I'm racking my brains as to whom to exclude without giving the appearance of any unintentional favouritism, etc.! Suggestions welcome!

    Thanks very much for your input, much appreciated. Pesky (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry about the ELs too much, that wouldn't affect my support. It's just more than I'm used to seeing at FAC. Also, I don't see any links to the Hedges, Saville, and O'Connell source now. (Ucucha's HarvErrors script lights up like a Christmas tree when there's an unused bibliography source, that's why I keep nitpicking about this.)
  • Ah, yes, that may have been to bits which I chopped out earlier! I'll deal with that. Pesky (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • I will standardise the serial commas throughout, too. Yes, "Forest" should be capitalised (it's a shortened form of its official name "New Forest"). Pesky (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)  Done (I think I got all the serial commas, but if I missed any, do feel free to put them in!)[reply]
  • Yup, no probs, I can fix those. Pesky (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • I think it's probably common enough; any pet owner (as well as farmers etc.) will be familiar with the concept of worming animals.
  • I linked it. --Montanabw
  • I think "autumn" is best here; foals (born in the spring) have to be old enough to be weaned from their mothers, so it's specifically relevant to the season rather than any particular calendar month, etc.
  • I'll hunt those down and deal with them.  Done
Hmm; have to work out which particular French wars we're talking about!  Done
  • I'll find something about that.  Done
  • OK, I'll hunt those out and real with them, too.  Done
  • Yes, really. It's an ongoing situation; is currently the case, has always been the case.

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Removed ref (not really needed)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Changed refs.
  • I'll get onto all of those as soon as I can. Real Life is taking priority at the moment (my mother is expected to die within the next 24 hours or thereabouts, so I may not be around on the 'pedia). Pesky (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done all those (I think!) Pesky (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your work and input, guys. I appreciate it all. I'm just working-up another article to give y'all, but it will be on the back burner for a couple of weeks now. Pesky (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have time to do any remaining tweaks on this one ;P We have a bit of a quiet patch now until the funeral. Pesky (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samurai, could you please be more specific as to which references you're questioning? As far as I can see, all of the references used meet WP's guidelines for reliable sources, and Nikkimaria (above) did a check for reliable sources and the ones that she was concerned about have, I believe, been replaced. (Pesky, as an aside, templates like the "done" checkmark are frowned upon at FAC because they make the archives exceed template limits). Dana boomer (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
("Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.,")
Please let me know what you think, it is better to find out now than later, if there is any doubt run it by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard just to be sure. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samurai, that is the website for the breed registry, which is obviously a recognized expert on the breed (not to mention this is not exactly contentious information). This is not some backyard breeder's blog, it is the website for the government-recognized organization in charge of the breed that has been in place since, I think, 1905. Breed registries have been found to be a reliable source in many previous FACs and GANs - I can point you to specific links if you want, but there are a lot of them. Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#newforestpony.com, I think its best to get an independent third party opinion on this reference as it may be a valid reference for certain types of information such as this work and history of the registry but maybe not the history of the pony.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this bled over here, people. I have been having some trouble with Samurai again over on the tack articles, and I guess he's after you guys because he's trolling my contribs. Note this and especially this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia. Montanabw(talk) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK, I'll admit to being a bit pee'd off about this. Samurai, you and I have crossed paths before, and I had to ask you not to post on my talk as a result of your battleground behaviour there. You're only the second editor in my over 17,000 edits who I've had to ask this of, and the other one has been reprieved. The official Breed Registry in the UK is most definitely the most reliable source for basic information on the breed itself. I'll wander over to the RS noticeboard when I can, but right now I have to go over to the ponies as we're waiting for the vet, and my mother died only a week ago today, so I'm sure you'll understand (at least I hope you will) that Wikipedia stuff is not my highest priority right now. I cannot for the life of me see your input here as anything other than unnecessarily confrontational and disruptive. Pesky (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pesky (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want anything else done to this? – I have another one I'd like to bring here soon! Pesky (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MistyMorn (talk):

Will comb the prose of this attractive article and make some tentative suggestions:

Lede
Already dealt with I see. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regularly; the NFPEC only rides New Forest ponies, and they compete against all the other British Riding Club teams in all disciplines (and regularly beat them). Most British Riding Clubs riders are mounted on horses, not ponies.
  • Then the lede seems to be fine. Perhaps a few more details (and/or ref?) in the opening sentence of the relevant para in the main article to avoid any impression of puffery to the unschooled footman? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done by Montanabw (see below). —MistyMorn
Characteristics
  • I have fixed the overlinking of "hands" prompted by the template. Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. —MistyMorn
  • I killed all the hyphens. It's a style issue, but "purebred" is the more modern form and used in most other WPEQ articles (though a UK vs US English argument perhaps can be made, not a moral issue, and now at least easier to do a search and replace in either direction). --Montanabw
  • Drastic action, but consistency is satisfied... ;) —MistyMorn
  • No, we have to have the detail; where white markings exist is linked to genetics and it's a BIG DEAL in horse land. Open to smoother phrasing if it's possible, but the breed standard is what it is. (Maybe we could do it as a direct quote, Pesky?) --Montanabw
Fair enough. (The syntax of the original leaves something to be desired, imo.) —MistyMorn
  • Done, with some minor rewording --Montanabw
  • Fine now, imo. —MistyMorn
  • It was in the set of cites at the end of the paragraph, but pulled one and duplicated it where you needed the pinpoint. --Montanabw
  • Yes, I think that's more reader friendly. —MistyMorn
  • I personally loathe parentheticals when not needed, but I rejiggered the sentence for clarity, hope it was an improvement. --Montanabw
  • I still have issues with the ambiguous (and repetitive) "It". How about: "Since the inheritance pattern is recessive, both parents...? Pedants corner: I appreciate the practical reasons for the focus on clinical signs in the foal (is "ensuing" necessary, btw?), but offspring who don't inherit the mutated allele from both parents shouldn't be clinically affected at all throughout their life. But perhaps this is implicit... so OK, anyway. —MistyMorn
  • The changes made earlier (and I made one more) seem to have addressed this? I'm sort of into study of this genetic disease in purebred breeds stuff, and it is a tough call when to mention the implicit (carriers do not have clinical signs -- hence foals who inherit only one allele are carriers just as the contributing parent is a carrier), as then it gets complicated; carrier-to carrier matings (for any simple recessive trait) statistically produce 25% clear, 25% affected and 50% carrier. So it's a "how far down the rabbit hole shall we travel? Particularly in this case where we have a new and pretty rare problem (though the stuff added about reduced genetic diversity in the forest hints at WHY this has cropped up; but to correlate this would be SYNTH at the moment) --MTBW
  • I kind of retweaked per the abstract from the peer-reviewed article. It's important to neither catastrophize nor downplay the significance of this discovery, the study covered one foal, but the gene was found in a family line, so presumably will recur. --MTBW
  • That is my understanding too. So we completely agree on the substance here. -Misty
  • I think so, if you agree that a recessive needs to have a genetic test available so it can be nipped in the bud quickly, before it becomes an endemic problem in a breed, because most breeders are quick to put their heads in the sand and just keep on linebreeding if you don't. (smile) For example, HERDA now is carried by nearly 25% of all cutting and reining horses, it's a HUGE problem for them. --MTBW
  • Yes, this sort of issue is both relevant and insidious. I don't think it would be undue to include some of the information in this quote in the main text. What do you think? Also, a small editorial query: Are the implied broader concepts about the inheritance pattern of other CLCN1 mutations sufficiently supported by Wijnberg 2012 (I've only accessed the abstract), or do we need to insert another supporting ref? —MistyMorn (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like keeping the quote in the footnote, not the main text. At this point, too much emphasis might be WP:UNDUE. Compare, for example, the way we handled the blindness issue at the FA Appaloosa. I'd say as far as the recessive inheritance bit, at least in horses, the statement in the abstract is pretty strong, particularly backed by the article in The Horse (which is an AAEP publication and thus generally quite reliable) but I can look at the whole article. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • splitting the points for clarity:
    1) I agree the footnote is informative as it is and The Horse pinpoints the broader issue quite neatly here. Having worked in prevention, I feel the ongoing research effort is a relevant initiative which deserves due weight. My concern regarding our main text as it stands is that finishing the paragraph with "...both parents must contribute a copy of the mutated allele for a foal to develop clinical signs" could appear overly reassuring to readers not familiar with the underlying issues. could we perhaps add a short concluding sentence about the ongoing initiative without being WP:UNDUE?

    2) Regarding the details specifics:
    a) This was not "the first time the condition had been identified in equines" (see [[2]]; two reviews I haven't accessed, [3], [4]).
    b) "A missense mutation (c.1775A>C, p.D592A) in CLCN1 is the causative allele for the condition in goats and humans..." - many different CLCN1 mutations can cause the disease (see [5]).
    c) "...thus proposed as the cause in horses." Per Wijnberg, "The mutation showed a recessive mode of inheritance within the reported pony family. Therefore, this CLCN1 polymorphism is considered to be a possible cause of congenital myotonia."
    d) "The gene has a recessive mode of inheritance in the foal's family..." Again, per Wijnberg, "The mutation showed...
    (Hope this helps clarify the details of our edit misunderstandings.)

    —MistyMorn (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to MTBW's considerations on my talk page and latest changes here:
I agree about the relevance and delicacy of this topical issue. For the reasons you've stated I think it's important to ensure that the content of this paragraph is correctly expressed and that it can provide breeders with the sort of information they need to be able to access should they take the Wikipedia article into consideration when responding to requests from the Swiss team for genetic testing of their ponies (a good response from owners will obviously be a key factor in the research project and a premise for the success of the prevention initiative). To this end, I've tried (here) to deploy my professional experience as a medical writer to clarify and contextualize the material (while avoiding, I trust, any unnecessarily technical bloat). On encyclopedic grounds, I hope the text is now accurate and that it provides readers with appropriate information and resources to get to grips with the genuine issues without provoking any undue drama. I agree that retaining the quote from The Horse is helpful: it vehicles a key message. Can we now maybe reach consensus on this paragraph? Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are real close. I replaced the word "benign" as though it may be medically accurate, it is understood differently by laypeople, and a horse with a muscular disorder that can fall down is definitely a danger to a rider and for that purpose may be considered seriously disabled. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have some other hacks, moved to talk page for this project page so we can hash on the text without further bloat elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another read-through of the material, and the various chat bits, and see what I think (though I should surely be able to trust you guys to get it sorted without me!) Once again, my apologies for having been semi-absent for a while. Misty, the interesting thing is that the pony this cropped up is wasn't a Forest-run pony (and AFAIK wasn't a near-generational-descendent either). The Forest itself is remarkably clear of genetic disorders or adverse traits of any kind; the harshness of the environment itself obviously weeds real weaknesses out pretty thoroughly, and with all the animals being in the same place, and the stallions producing so many foals each, each year, if a stallion were carrying something nasty (which showed up, obviously) it would be very clear, very quickly, and he'd be removed from the breeding stock and de-registered as a stallion. A few of our local pony-people are genetics-savvy to one extent or another (and getting more so, with the occasional nudge ;P), and it's likely that (in that event) many of his offspring would then be tested, too. - Pesky
There is a rewrite of the paragraph at the talk page for this page, see if it works for you. Utrecht speaks well of NF pony breeders. If you can find us a source that says the foal wasn't run on the forest, do let us know. The lab analysis of relatives found the allele in a maternal great-grandparent, BTW. Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the entire study here, and added the (I feel important) information that Wijnberg et al. believe it's a recent(ish) mutation. The proposed founder stallion appears on both sides of the foal's pedigree, and all animals tested so far which test positive for the mutation trace their ancestry back to this stallion. It would be good to know the exact breeding of this foal (does anyone know its identity for sure?) New Foresters have been being bred in the Netherlands for quite a while now; between 20 and 30 champion-line ponies were exported to the Netherlands in the 1950's as the founders of the Netherlands breeding stock. (That's a fair few horse generations back). So ... who has access to this particular foal's pedigree? Pesky (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more info elsewhere; major point is that everything which now can go in, on this, is in. Other stuff will have to await published, independent third-party sources ;P Pesky (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Tweaked. --Montanabw
  • Yes. —MistyMorn
Check out the gap between the Isle of Wight and the New Forest coastline, in the Solent! It's tiny!
I'm not sure about reversing the order of that one; the kinda point is that locals have said for generations that Spanish stallions contributed to the breed, then that was believed to be a myth, but now modern research has pointed out that there are close genetic ties with two Spanish breeds. So - it might not be as much of a myth as has been suggested in the past. I know there are a lot of "Spanish Armada stallion" myths about, but around the coastal areas of the UK it's not as unrealistic as it might sound (the Armada certainly had conflicts in the Solent, which is a pretty narrow strip of water (only about 3 to five miles wide, depending on where you measure it, and only just over three-quarters of a mile total at the pinch point between Hurst point and Yarmouth) between the mainland and the Isle of Wight, and the New Forest includes part of the Solent coastline). So any animal which went over in that stretch would have been easily within visual distance of the New Forest coast. What do you guys think? - Pesky
I reversed the order of those two sentences again, and concatenated them with a semicolon. (Note: anything which went overboard (or was chucked) in that stretch of water is highly likely to have come ashore on the North Solent marshes, which are part of the New Forest)- Pesky
  • The secondary source (Aberle et al 2004) is relevant here. Without going into details, I think it's important for us to avoid WP:SYNTH. (I've made a WP:BRD type edit in the article as a suggestion.) —MistyMorn (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha! Yeah, okay, that'll do! - Pesky
  • Yes, Tubbs is the source for all of that stuff; I've also updated the url to where it currently is!
Hehe! Yes, it's a fine balance! There are various schemes being tried out, including one for breeding stallions from mares which have a history (personal and pedigree) of successfully surviving / thriving on the Forest with minimal human input.
Perhaps worth mentioning? I think this is one point on the page where some rewriting/expansion is needed to clarify the recent history and avoid the appearance of mixing concepts. It would seem that over the period there has been some tension between the biological need to reinforce the "breed" by bringing in fresh blood (enriching the gene pool) and the cultural drive to perpetuate the "purebred" phenotype. I would suggest chronicling the various interventions one at a time (perhaps one sentence each?). Other thoughts? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look and see where I can clarify. - Pesky
Uses
  • Tweaked --Montanabw
  • Thank you, —MistyMorn
  • Tweaked --Montanabw
Ponies of the New Forest
  • Rephrased entirely and made two sentences with some rewording. --MTBW
  • Did minor rephrase, slightly different, did it help? --MTBW
  • Added air quotes. --MTBW
  • Made some tweaks to emphasize the importance of the seasonal aspect of management. --MTBW
  • I tweaked the wikilink, a drift IS, basically, a roundup or a muster. If Pesky wants to add the link, I'll defer to her on that. --MTBW
  • I'm not fussed either way. So long as you guys are happy to agree, either way, I'll go with your decision. - Pesky
  • Rephrased entirely. --MTBW
  • Rephrased. --MTBW
Bibliography

Note: I also stumbled upon a couple of scientific primary sources which probably aren't especially suitable for citation, but which I'll link here anyway, just for info: Putman et al 1987; Pollock 1982.

References

(I'll insert any queries/suggestions here as and when I find them)

External links

Perhaps worth grouping thematically (with subheadings)?

  • I personally dislike that format, in general I don't think we need to lengthen the TOC with EL list subheadings, and here the links are only of two types, one the UK organizations relevant to the breed and the other a list of organizations in other nations. And they are already arranged in that order. --MTBW
General consideration

A nagging question I'm left with is how much we really don't know about changes to the breed over the centuries. I suspect rather a lot! To provide readers with some sort of overall perspective, feel it would be good to insert a sentence specifically acknowledging the limits to our current knowledge in this regard.

Yes, I accept that there's no ready way of addressing the question. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

I feel this would make a very interesting and attractive FA on the main page. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on to all those and deal with as appropriate. Pesky (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few tweaks from the last round and fixed a couple more phrasing issues. Pesky can trout slap me if I messed up anything. Montanabw(talk) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support —MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can ditch the citation there.
  • Actually, we have to keep it, there is no other mention of being a Mountain and Moorland breed elsewhere in the text, and would be awk to insert it anywhere else. It isn't controversial, but some other editor will probably whine that it's unsourced if we don't keep it in there somewhere. --Montanabw
But we Britishers always use miles! It's what we do ...
I inserted the convert template into the offending areas. If someone else wants them to go the other way, it's whatever the source says, I guess. --Montanabw
Sorry, was not aware of this. Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done --Montanabw
  • Done. --Montanabw
Yup, the heart is the centre; we Britishers often use "heart" for an area.
  • Done. --Montanabw
  • Done. --Montanabw
  • I just tossed the name in the text, it's in the ref, all that's needed. --Montanabw
  • Done. --Montanabw
ROFL! --Montanabw
Noted by pretty much everyone dealing with the ponies: commoners, buyers, etc.
Noted by Williamson (1861) and Spooner (1871)? Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, MF queried it at GA, but it's an ongoing situation. It's always been the case and still is the case.
It means the same as depastured.
Which means the same thing as "pastured" -- LOL for horsey terms of art.--MTBW
Yes. --Montanabw
  • I thought I fixed that. It goes to The Horse Online, yes? - MTBW
  • I think we've addressed this? It now gives "Utrect University" as the author (which is what the article says), and we've added "subscription needed". Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, IIRC it's just registration (which is free) which is needed, not an actual suyb. You just sign up and read. - Pesky
  • I think I've made everything match. Let me know if I missed anything. Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few suggestions. The first one in particular seems like a significant omission: it is a lengthy monograph on the subject, and is very highly-cited. The rest, I'm not sure, but I think they should be checked. Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have URLs to any abstracts of these? My concern is that they are all so old as to be superseded? Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added DOIs where available. Is New Forest pony research so cutting edge that decades-old literature on social organization and ecology are outdated? Sasata (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title: The behaviour and social organization of the New Forest ponies.
Author(s): Tyler S.J.
Source: Animal Behav Monogr Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Pages: 85-196 Published: 1972
  • Title: The New Forest Pony. (a book chapter)
Author(s): Pigott Sir B.
Book Author(s): Berlin, J.
Source: The New Forest. Pages: pp. i-x, 1-201 Published: 1961
  • Title: Use of Habitat by Free-Ranging Cattle and Ponies in the New Forest, Southern England
Author(s): R. M. Pratt, R. J. Putman, J. R. Ekins, P. J. Edwards
Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Aug., 1986), pp. 539-557 doi:10.2307/2404035
  • Title: Food and Feeding Behaviour of Cattle and Ponies in the New Forest, Hampshire
Author(s): R. J. Putman, R. M. Pratt, J. R. Ekins, P. J. Edwards
Source:Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Aug., 1987), pp. 369-380 doi:10.2307/2403881
  • Title: The Distribution of Excreta on New Forest Grassland Used by Cattle, Ponies and Deer
Author(s): P. J. Edwards, S. Hollis
Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Dec., 1982), pp. 953-964 doi:10.2307/2403296
One of the problems with the academic papers is that they are referring to all the ponies which graze the Forest as "New Forest ponies". What they're studying is the behaviour of semi-feral ponies grazing on the Forest, many of which are not New Forest ponies! The breed "New Forest pony" doesn't behave any differently from any other breed living in feral, wild or semi-feral conditions: all equines have the same social behaviours. What the academic studies should have made clear that they were referring to (and been appropriately titled) was the behaviour of semi-feral ponies grazing on the New Forest. So, nothing in that literature is actually specific to the New Forest pony as a breed, which is what the article is about. - Pesky
Have you actually looked at the papers? Pratt et al. (1986), for example, state the "The verderers records show that in 1980 there were 3430 ponies on the Open Forest."; this statistic is similar to those presented in the article (do those statistics also include non-Forest Forest ponies?). It seems to me that most "semi-feral ponies grazing on the New Forest" are New Forest ponies. Am I wrong in my assumption? (If I am, why isn't this in the article?) Regardless, these papers contain information about the ecology of New Forest ponies in their natural habitat (i.e. feeding and grazing interactions with other species) and I don't understand why they should be dismissed. Sasata (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ponies grazing on the open Forest are New Foresters and their crossbreds, certainly. One can't put precise figures (reliably sourced!) on how many are or aren't purebred NF ponies. I suppose really it's a question of just how much depth one wants to go into about equine interactions with other species, which are basically the same for all wild, feral or semi-feral herds, as opposed to things which are specific to the New Forest pony as a breed. It's very tempting, certainly, to include a lot of extra information (and one could go on forever with that one!) and I'm not "dismissing" that information, it's just that it applies (as I said) to all equines in those conditions, and I think we should (insofar as it's possible) keep the article mainly on the subject of New Forest pony breed. Could you suggest, maybe, a short sentence or two on precisely which information from those papers you think should be included in this particular article? Personally, I'm not sure that we should go into too much detail about semi-wild equine behaviour in general. - Pesky
I would add that much this stuff on herd dynamics IS discussed in horse behavior (and if it's not, that IS where it should be), so we may want to just add a cross link to that article. I am interested in whether there is something in their unique to the NF ponies, and to that end I agree with Pesky that it would be good to know what might be unique to this breed and for that reason worth adding? --MTBW
I've never seen anything in terms of herd behaviour which is unique to New Forest ponies, and I don;t recall anything ever having been said by anyone else, anywhere, which would suggest such a thing. I've been in close contact with the Forest-run herd for quite a while now, and I have quite a long personal history of expertise in horse behaviour in general. The Forest-run ponies do exactly what other wild-running equines do, in all circumstances. Of course, they're easier to study than many other equines iun similar situations – researchers can study thousands of animals, none of which are too far from a decent road (and car park!), and all of which are in a relatively small geographical area! - Pesky
  • Not really, we do use this reference in some of our breed articles, it is superior to the Hendricks book, but in this case it is mostly a rehash of the same material available from the breed societies. If you think we need this to support other sources, we sure could add some stuff, but please offer suggestions as to where. However, this is a general work; I think Pesky's more specific sources may be superior. Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be several interesting tidbits from this source that are not in the article:
  • "Owners find that feeding and stall cleaning finishes a lot quicker because the ponies are not usually messy in their stalls."
  • Mere Puffery, I suspect. If I were a reviewer with no involvement with this article, I'd slap that out in two seconds. Speaking as someone who has cleaned a LOT of stalls, horses of any breed include both the "neat freaks" and the "stall slobs." (big grin) --MTBW
  • "... no outside blood has been permitted since the mid 1930s."
... that's already in there. - Pesky
  • The second paragraph of the "Uses" section could be expanded with details from p. 506 (ponies are shown in Devon; present at the ISR/Oldenburg inspections; approved and registered at the American Warmblood Society)
  • One could go on forever with examples of New Forest ponies in competitions; they compete all over the world, in all disciplines, and I feel that including specific examples (other than such notable events as winning a National Final) might lead readers to believe that New Forest ponies' competition performance is actually less widespread than it is. Pretty much every major horse show in the UK has classes for New Forest ponies, and every show with a Mountain and Moorland showing section does so. - Pesky
  • Yes, it's a dilemma in all the breed articles, how much do we promote the competitiveness of a given breed against others (just had to face an edit dispute not long ago with someone who wanted to claim the Percheron was good at barrel racing oh gawd...). And, I have to note, getting approved by the American Warmblood society is pretty much "send us $50 and we'll send you a pretty certificate," so no importance to that. --MTBW
  • There doesn't seem to be any information about the history of the breed in the US, starting with the importation of 22 purebreds in the 1950s (see most of p. 506)
  • Same issue. Once we go down that road, we first get a "lacks worldwide focus" tag and claims an article is too US-Centric (I say this as an American, by the way) so then we have to add bits on Australia, on South Africa, on Germany and wherever else in East Nowhere someone imported a critter or two. Then we get some troll claiming that we left out South Asia or Siberia, or South America - even if there are no imports there at all. I don't have an answer here, but I'll defer to Pesky if we should add more. I hesitate to do so. --MTBW
  • I'm in total agreement with MTBW here; once we start mentioning the history of the breed in other countries, we'll hit the challenges MTBW mentions. The links to the breed societies for the other countries will give readers any information they want about the history of the breed in that area. - Pesky
  • That's Hendricks, we only use that source for horse breed articles when there's not much else, as it is not a particularly good reference book, riddled with overgeneralizations and some errors. Mostly takes material from the breed societies at face value with little analysis. --Montanabw
Different sources give different dates both for the founding of the Society and for the merger of the two societies; I think I went with the majority.
Ok, I wont even mention that JSTOR 4004970 says the New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society was formed in 1938, not 1937 :) Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question this stat; if true, with fewer than 5000 animals on the New Forest, the breed would be practically extinct by now. And the breeders would be freaking out. Pesky? Can you cross-check? --Montanabw
  • the NPA site mentions animal fatalities; the figures include cattle, donkeys and pigs, as well as the ponies. Since the use of reflective collars began, the number has reduced quite a bit, but there are still far too many fatalities (stupid, thoughtless drivers; almost never tourists, almost always local commuters, usually in the dusk hours – they drive over the Forest every day and get blasé about it). I can include something on this. Probably not today, as it's my mother's funeral today. - Pesky.
  • I've added a bit in about traffic fatalities; and yes, we do get up in arms about it! It doesn't seem to matter how many warning signs are put up, there are always idiot drivers who either ignore the speed limit altogether, or just drive unsafely for the conditions, or who seem to think that 40 mph is a target, rather than a limit. The numbers killed in traffic accidents don't exceed the numbers born, of course; and with the numbers of New Forest ponies bred elsewhere, of course, traffic fatalities on the open Forest itself aren't going to lead to extinction of the breed. - Pesky
The NF pony is known as a larger breed pony as their heights go right up to 14.2hh (and beyond, though they're not eligible to be registered if they've gone "over-height". In the UK, we have the large pony breeds and the small pony breeds, and the NF is counted as a large breed. Small breeds are things like the Welsh Section A and B, the Shetland, etc.
And nothing particularly remarkable about a pony breed that touches the edge of 14.2, many do. Only the UK pony breeds have so much variety they make a significant deal about classifying them. --Montanabw
It's iconic of the New Forest itself; something that all Britishers associate with the Forest (it's the only area in the UK where thousands of ponies graze out on common land.
Yes, but is this expressed in the article? Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit in there about that. - Pesky
Yup, the source falls into one of the common UK traps of calling all double-cream-dilute animals "cremello", but cremello is actually double-cream dilution on a chestnut base coat, and no double-cream dilutions are allowed in New Forest ponies. So, no perlinos (double-dilute on a bay or brown base) or smoky creams (double-dilute on a black base), either. On the whole, the Brits are not good at coat colour genetics (most breed societies are still calling buckskin ponies "dun", for example.)
Agree with Pesky that there has been a lot of work done in coat color genetics that laypeople and breed registries haven't caught up with. There at least five ways to genetically get a horse that looks like a blue-eyed cream, which are all lumped together by laypeople as "cremello" (even in the USA). And it is just a summary paraphrase of the breed standard anyway. They got their material directly from one of the registries. --Montanabw

I'll get onto most of that stuff, but would appreciate more thoughts on my responses here. Pesky (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked a few things, my eyes are a little fresher. Pesky can trout me if I killed too many hyphens. Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Montana and Dana and all, many thanks for your help with all this! Do feel free to continue with the good work during my absence ;P I couldn't really care less about the hyphens, you may kill as many as seems appropriate. Re the various other sources around, many of them are either inaccurate or out of date; I've tried to stick with the best / most accurate ones. Can anyone other than me try to deal with the fixes needed in the citations? I doubt if I could get my head properly around them right at the moment. Pesky (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dana got the citations, I did some language tweaks and wikilinking. REVIEWERS: What do we still need to address? Montanabw(talk) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm finding this kilometric page increasingly difficult to navigate for reply/feedback purposes, I propose putting BRD type edits into the article to facilitate the process. Obviously, feel free to revert and discuss. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking through the numbers in the penultimate para of the History section. It is unclear to me to what extent variations in the total numbers of depastured stock can be considered informative for variations within the pony subset. For example, the source (Tubbs 1965) says "Mounting market prices after 1917 are reflected in a corresponding rise in stock numbers-mainly cattle-to a peak of 4,550 in 1920." On a separate matter, I also think it should be made clear that the pony numbers cited in this paragraph refer, presumably, to all ponies depastured on the New Forest (not just purebreds). —MistyMorn (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll letPesky tackle that one when she next checks in. I'm clueless on that bit. Montanabw(talk) 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Well Pesky'll love me for that! Some minor rewording tweaks should help I guess. Back tomorrow, I hope. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, I love you anyway, you know that! (Pesky's granny-love distributed to all and sundry on regular basis, lol!) I'll have to re-tweak the bit about the introduction of other native breeds, though, as it wasn't done to increase genetic diversity (which most people knew little about in the early 1900's), but to increase hardiness and bring the ponies back to a more "native" type, using the other native Mountain and Moorland ponies, to get away from the less-hardy Araby/TB-ish input, which (although it had made the ponies more "refined" and appealing to the Victorian idea of what a "pretty pony" should be) had adversely affected their ability to thrive on the open Forest and also reduced their weight-carrying abilities, etc. Dainty, delicate-looking little animals may be all very cute for the show ring or the park, but not so good for living "wild" on rough, wild (wet, marshy, poor-pasture) land, with no extra feeding and so on. I'll have another look through everything after the weekend. Pesky (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding: prior to the introduction of the stud book, the New Forest ponies (by which I mean commoners' ponies running out on the Forest) weren't a recognised breed, they were just the ponies of the area, which had degenerated in "type" for several reasons. One was that all the better ponies tended to be sold on (as they attracted higher prices), leaving the poorer-quality stock being the only ones breeding on the Forest. The hardiness and quality of the Forest-run stock was improved by the introduction of good animals from other British native Mountain and Moorland breeds. This continued until 1930, when the stud book became "closed" to outside blood, and the official New Forest pony breed was properly established. So ... prior to the "invention" of the breed, nothing on the Forest was an "official New Forest pony", as such; they were all just ponies running the Forest. Is this clear? What this basically means is that the pony numbers from before 1930 applies to all Forest-run ponies, as the official breed hadn't at that point become established. If you look in a lot of pedigrees, many of them have ancestors described simply as "Forest horse" or "Forest mare", indicating that both parents were Forest-run ponies (often without names of their own). It's only since the breed was officially named and established, with its own stud book, that one can distinguish between purebred NF, part-bred NF, and "other-breeding" ponies. For instance, this one ("The Ghost Forest mare") only has a known pedigree on the sire side, the dam side were just ponies running out on the Forest. ( Pesky (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is, incidentally, common in many breeds, the notion of a purebred animal with a stud book and all is basically about 300 years old, tops, (though some written pedigrees go back to the 13th century) and most efforts at establishing closed stud books are at best 150 years old, other than for the Thoroughbred. Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"long been accepted as a myth" - interesting segment - to my eyes, I don't necessarily see myths as untrue, so if the gist of the message is supposed to be that the spanish armada ancestry is not thought true I'd reword - also, quotes can be a bit jarring so I'd rewrite as....actually damn if I can think of how to reword it, "long held to have no credence"?...hmmm.
  • I think we'd just best keep the quote, can't find a backup source that has, say, the peer-reviewed study proving the negative. LOL! --MTBW
I still reckon it's far from impossible, given the distances (or rather the lack of them) involved! ;P I'm hoping that it will turn out to be one of the (several, so far) things that I'm ultimately proved correct on ... Pesky (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, no problem, not a dealbreaker anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs)
Probably the most notable stallion in the early history... -aaargh, I'd lose the "probably" - "Arguably" is a better adjective but can we leave it out altogether? Or even just "A notable stallion....". Incidentally, the article doesn't indicate why he's a notable horse. So a word or two to that effect would benefit here.
d'oh! missed the sire bit - no problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Otherwise looking on-target prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. nice article Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the tweaks a little, hope no problems. Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does mention that Marske was the sire of Eclipse, who (obviously ;P) has his own article, which describes him thus: "Eclipse (1 April 1764 – 26 February 1789) was an outstanding, undefeated 18th-century British Thoroughbred racehorse who was later a phenomenal success as a sire." Do we actually need to go into any more detail on Marske, as both he and Eclipse are wikilinked? I'd be happy to ditch the "probably" qualifier (and will do so). Feel free to tweak. Pesky (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing a lot about Marske, the sire of Eclipse is needed to make me want to click on the link, otherwise, I'd say "who cares?" (grin) Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky....

Refs 34, 44, 49 do not use the same date retrieved format as the other refs, please make them consistent.
will keep reviewing. PumpkinSky talk 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support with queries and nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that's what the hands template does! To change that, we'll need a change in the template. - Pesky
  • Done. - Pesky
  • Done. - Pesky
  • Tweaked. - Pesky
  • Done. - Pesky
  • A guinea is £1.05 (guinea is wikilinked for clarity - I don't know if there's any comparative measurement). - Pesky
  • Done. - Pesky
  • tweaked to "sound sense". - Pesky
  • The season during which the drifts are carried out; though article says this is done in the autum I;ve tweaked this anyway to read "autumn drifts". - Pesky
  • Done. - Pesky
  • Moved to above para. - Pesky
  • Most commonly for being in poor condition; they can also be ordered off if the owner loses their common rights, or if they become vicious. - Pesky (No, the pony ... not the owner! ;P)
  • Not sure where you mean - please can you clarify? - Pesky
  • fn 6 and 13 now the same as each other - Pesky

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi all, are any reviewers vouching for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing re. sourcing? If not we'll need a spotcheck... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More