Wikipedia:Peer review/Horses in warfare/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Horses in warfare

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently passed an A class review and a MILHIST Peer Review, since when it has undergone some alterations. We are hoping to put it up for FAC soon and would like any feedback on what else should be done to the article in preparation, with attention to content (any gaps? undue weight?), format and so forth.

We are putting this up for an open peer review after the MILHIST PR because we would like to get the viewpoints of some editors outside of the military and equine wiki-communities. Thanks, Montanabw, Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Gwinva (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article looks very promising and I think it could be in shape for an FAC quite soon. There's more than enough material, illustrations and a genuine effort has been made to broaden the coverage beyond just European warfare. I have some suggestions, though.
  • The size of the article is a bit daunting. The topic certainly deserves much information, but it seems a bit excessive in some areas. The article comes off to a good start in summarizing the early history of horse warfare, but becomes very Eurocentric from the Middle Ages and onward. Here are some suggestions for condensing the text:
    • Comment: In part, this is because of changes in technology begin to standardize tactics to some degree. However, we are open to other source material if available. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Middle Ages have a separate article on horse uses with a major section on horses in warfare. This could be shortened considerably. There might even be enough material to start a separare article on horses in medieval warfare.
    • Comment There is Horses in the Middle Ages, already broken out from this article. Montanabw(talk)
      • I think his point is that a third article could be made, with just information about horses in medieval warfare, to take some of the bulk out of the HiW and HitMA articles. There is a good point here...we all know that we're going to get smashed on the length issue at FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe some stuff can go over to HiMA, but we can really start to balkanize things as some point as far as a third article goes, IMHO. However, we also get slapped for not being worldwide enough in focus. I really don't think the length thing is any worse than Thoroughbred was, is it? I also doubt it's a deal-killer. Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Errr...TB is about 2/3 the length (67b vs 99). Just to point that out... I think we can continue to take out extra verbiage and any redundancies, and make sure that anything we add in is really relevant, rather than simply fun facts. Dana boomer (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair 'nuff. I am for looking at "fun facts." LOL! I also don't know what to do with some of the historical expansion -- not all is really middle ages, much of it is actually later. Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Related modern uses" doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the article topic. It could just as well be converted to a sub-heading of the modern usage section. Law enforcement horses and equestrianism have their origins in military uses but they are not military today. It's appropriate to mention these aspects briefly, but dedicating paragraphs to them is rather excessive. After all, there are dedicated articles for these topics.
    • Comment It is extremely relevant, as almost all modern uses of horses for recreational pursuits and most practical work other than in agriculture are derived from military uses. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check out my proposed revision on the article talk page. We have gotten consistent complaints from every reviewer about the length/relevance of this section, so I think we're probably going to have to shorten it. Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did and using some of your ideas, cut and merged a few things. I really think that people who think it's not relevant need to be educated that horses = military. End of story. Maybe we don't do that well enough, but NOTHING we do with them today, other than a few harness events, cannot be traced to their military uses. IMHO, I'd prefer to make the connection as explicit as possible rather than chopping it. Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Origins in military matters does not merit inclusion in a military article. I would not recommend taking a position that that goes against consistent complaints just to keep information within a specific article. Educating readers is one thing, lecturing them is another. I have no trouble understanding the historical connection between warhorses and mounted police and equestrianism even without previous knowledge of the topic, but I don't find it particularly relevant in an article about warfare. Peter Isotalo 01:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no problem with the section being cut back to a small mention in a couple of sentences. It's always seemed like a small digression to me, perhaps it might be split into another article? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I cut it some and am OK with the additional material cut over the last day or so. The section itself has relevance, though. I think there is room for compromise beyond "a couple of sentences," particularly because certain things, such as Olympic events and public safety uses are direct descendants, and police work, in particular, is arguably military. Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is very long and could be a bit lighter on specific details. For example, it doesn't need to recap the history of every region that has seen usage of war horses.
    • Comment Make up your mind. First you say the article is too Eurocentric, now you complain about worldwide focus. We have been slapped for having a too-short intro in the past. We can't win, it appears. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a little bit of combining on the lead to at least make it look shorter. I don't think we need to actually cut content by much, as it is a good summary of a long article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, with Dana, the lead fits the overall article, but will do another run-through to see if we have too much verbiage. I think I did this once or twice already. Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A lead does not necessarily need to be a miniaturized version of the article, which is basically what it is currently. It has nothing to do with overall balance in the article. The article is already very long on its own and adjusting the lead to that doesn't improve readability. If you're unsure of what to cut, I can show you a proposal. Peter Isotalo 01:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I reviewed
              WP:LEAD. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should...summarize the most important points...should contain no more than four paragraphs..." Now someone did break our version out into more than 4 paras, but we reconsolidated them. I cut some verbiage from it, but given the length of the overall article, we are at about one sentence per major point, which is pretty good. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
  • Notes and footnotes are two terms for the exact same thing. Having two sets of notes and using two synonyms as headings is rather redundant, especially when notes appear to have footnote. It results in some rather off meta-referencing. Notes are quite often used to insert general commentary, so these could just as well be converted to normal ref-format. This is the format used in print literature and what readers will be most familiar with.
    • Comment' In past reviews, it was deemed necessary to break out the different types of citation. In part, we attempted to not bog down the article with important minor points of relevance. Once again, it appears we can't win. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since Ealdgyth is the one who separated them out, and she is the mistress of FAC, I'm going to say leave them in. I like them split anyway, because then the notes don't get lost in the references. Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Dittos Dana) Montanabw(talk)
          • I don't really keep track of the latest FAC fads. All I know is that two sets of are not required and are a bit confusing if you're used to footnotes in print works. Having headings called "Notes" and "Footnotes" is a bit like keeping separate sections for "Medieval times" and "Middle Ages". Peter Isotalo 01:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The two groupings are meant to pull out the explanatory notes from the purely sourcing notes so that the information contained in them is not lost in a sea of source footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is not a moral issue, but I think Ealdgyth's approach is a good one and actually we need to make a couple more footnotes into "notes." Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You should at least put both sets of notes under the same heading. "Footnotes" and "notes" are still interchangeable synonyms in this context. Peter Isotalo 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Notes in this case is used because "notes" is the title of the superscript accompanying the explanatory notes. We could go with "notes" for the explanatory notes, "references" for the pure sourcing footnotes, and "sources" for the full listings of the works. We can't use "bibliography" for sources, because in WP, bibliography is reserved for listing works written by the subject of an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've seen ref templates that assign explanatory notes letters instead of numbers, but I don't remember where. I really recommend going with this solution. It would allow for separate explanatory footnotes without the need for re-naming and assigning your own definitions to standard reference terms. Peter Isotalo 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of references is extensive: 79 sources altogether, and that's not counting online sources and articles. I'm generally not in favor of reference templates, but with so many print works Template:Harvard citation might be useful.
    • Comment We have been slapped, hard, on other articles for NOT using templates. Once again, can we ever win? Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: Also, Harvard citation format as shown here in wiki is not appropriate for a History article. In the Humanities, Chicago format is standard, and the templates and footnote style we use here are pretty much Chicago. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no conflict here. It just happens to be the name of the template. Take a look at how it's applied at Swedish language and you'll see what I mean. Peter Isotalo 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list of references is going to be long because the article is over 100 bytes. Templates make it easier, I like using them, and this is a personal preference thing more than anything else. There's not much we can do to shorten the list, except taking out some information, as we are discussing elsewhere. Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. The issue is the overall content of the article. We have had so many fact tags slapped on this thing over the last two years that we can't see straight. No way can we cut these down! Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was not really about the number of sources nor whether templates are required or not, but rather how that massive list might be handled a bit more efficiently. However, since you do bring the issue of this size of article somehowe "requiring" this many sources, I feel I need to object. Thoroughbred makes do with less than half of what has been used here, and the same is probably true for most FAs. I count 16 titles on medieval warfare and society alone. I've managed to write 60k+ FAs with fewer books than that. Admittedly, the topic is reasonably general, but we're still talking about a number of reference works that borders the unmanageable. Do you need to include Raychaudhuri s a mere backup reference to Olmstead? Is Warry required to confirm a statement Caesar made about British charioteers? And are both Contamine and LaBarge actually necessary to determine once and for all that a "rouncy was the everyday horse of a squire or of the mounted man-at-arms"? And these are just the really obvious cases of works used to support very uncomplicated statements. I don't want to argue individual points, but it seems that there are more bonus books than is actually useful. Peter Isotalo 01:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thoroughbred, however, isn't nearly as broad a subject to cover as an article covering the full range of human history around the globe. In order to do so with the best possible sources, it will necessarily use more sources than an article on a specific breed that's only been in existence since the Enlightenment. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Both these articles are rather extreme in the amount of sources they use. This would be rather logical if not such a high percentage of the sources were rather general reference works instead of studies of specific aspects of horse warfare. Having a bloated reference list is probably not going to prevent the article from becoming an FA (since quantity and quality are seen as being almost synonymous). However, from just a quick glance I can tell that a lot of works have come along for the ride without really being required. In my opinion, the hallmark of a quality article is not just how much it includes, but also what it manages to do without. Peter Isotalo 10:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is honest to god the first time I have heard anyone criticize for too many sources! LOL! The point about general reference works is that there are very few studies devoted exclusively to horses and very few horse studies devoted exculsively to warfare. Thus we take our source material where it can be found. I think interlibrary loan charges and book purchases have already bankrupted half the editors on this article! LOL! I will comment that a bit of wordsmithing has now cut the article from over 100 KB down to 95! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think reviewers are all that careful when it comes to actually examining use of sources, and when the list is three miles long it becomes even more difficult. The general attitude can easily become: "If there's that many books, it has to be good." But I'd rather discuss specific issues in the article rather than general principles of article referencing. I've already provided several examples (which have went uncommented), and there appears to be no problem in finding more:
                  • Ha! You haven't watched Ealdgyth do a FA review, have you? LOL! One reason we are being this anal is because the queen of FA review is putting one up! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Take a look at the second paragraph of the first section (the one on how much horses can pull). Some very specific statements in there, like how much of its bodyweight a horse can carry, are definitely in need of specific citations, and both Chamberlin and Edwards seem quite appropriate for that. But why is a treatise on roads from 1918 and a horse pulling website used to support that stronger horses can pull more and weaker horses less? Same goes for stuff like the difficulty of pulling wheelless loads over unpaved terrain and other fairly self-evident statements.
                  • Hmm. Thought we had cites for everything there, all the specifics...Neither Gladys Brown Edwards (a different editor has the other Edwards ref) nor Chamberlin have that information. You would actually be surprised how difficult it is to find this--the old cavalry and ag manuals from back in the day are what is often needed -- it does take going back a ways. Trust me, nothing is self-evident here -- we were fact tagged on the issue of how much horses can pull, it's a weight issue more than a "strength" issue (though conditioning plays a role, of course), this nearly started an edit war about a year ago! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The specific figures are not the issue. Those are indeed appropriate to cite specifically, as I've already pointed out. I was talking about the "strong horses pull more than weak horses"-type statements. Those are of self-evident kind. It's rather unclear why they require reference to a road treatise from 1918. Peter Isotalo 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I keep finding works that are cited just once, occasionally twice, for statements that are either highly parenthetical (note 1) or extremely general (that Poland used cavalry against the German invasion). Some are really nothing but backups (Bongard-Levin). Other than those I already mentioned, that would be Hyland (1998), Hitti (1957), Barber (2005), Bongard-Levin (1985), Bumke (2000) and Davies (2005). I get the feeling that there has been no attempt at all to economize the use of sources, that citations have been simply piled on at times, and that some really relevant sources haven't been used as much as they should. For example, Eating up Italy, a biographical book on modern Italian food, is cited as often as The Medieval Horse and its Equipment or The Nature of Horses.
                    • Trust me, if we could find it in one source, we would have done so. Note too that with books, we have to footnote to page numbers, thus creating separate sites. So some sources are actually used man, many times. We may be able to tap the Medieval horse book more, though a lot of the material may be duplicated by Hyland, in particular. Budiasky is mostly a behavioral and biological work, and while used a bit in the domestication article, it was only of limited use here, even though an excellent work. I guess I'm not sure what the problem is, other than a discomfort with the large number of sources?? Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Huh? Are sources used many times, but you don't specify it? I don't follow you. Whatever the case, I'd still don't see what sources like LaBarge and Raychaudhuri are doing in the article. They're not about either horses or warfare and seem there merely to pad notes that already have adequate references. They don't appear to be required and aren't interesting as further reading. They just seem superfluous... I'd also like to stress that Eating up Italy is not just an odd choice of a source, but actually rather inappropriate. A book that is described as "part travel memoir, part specialty recipe book"[1] does not appear to be a reliable source for an article on horse warfare. Peter Isotalo 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I believe what Montanabw means is that some of the sources are listed several times, with different page numbers. You have mentioned some examples, which have not been addressed. Let me address some now. Hyland is known as an authority on horse history, and it would be inconceivable not to use her (although perhaps we could make more use of her books); Bumke's literary analysis of primary sources isolates one fact not always recognised (use of mares) and one indirect quote. (again useful confirmation of what some have claimed is a myth: horses fighting). Barber's claim about the effectiveness of initial charges is important when discussing the use of heavy chivalry on a battlefield. Nothing can be gained, and much could be lost by removing these. True, they might be found in one economic source; as yet, we haven't. Until such a time, one cite each from multiple reputable sources is better than none at all. Gwinva (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Btw, what is "Mudra-Rakshasa II" (note 96) referring to? It's not in the reference list. Peter Isotalo 09:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good question, the person who originally created that section is no longer an active editor. I'll look into it. Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Follow up: The Mudrarakshasa, here Mudra-Rakshasa II, is a historic work in Indian culture, akin to Herodotus' Histories for the Greeks. I made a minor rephrase of the sentence to put in a wikilink to the article about it so that the footnote makes more sense. We also do not list Heroditus in the ref list, BTW, only in the footnotes. Hope that clears that up. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why shouldn't these literary works be cited just like your other sources? Exceptions are usually only made for books like the Bible or the Koran. Peter Isotalo 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That is an interesting and legitimate question. If Herodotus is considered a significant enough ancient work ala the Bible or Koran, to be linked absent a fuller cite, then so to I think would be the Mudrarakshasa. Therefore, what is your thought on citation of Herodotus? (The other problem is that the only copies of the Mudrarakahasa I can find online at Google books are in Sanskrit!). I agree that the works should be treated consistently...maybe this too is an Ealdgyth question. Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I'd say that Herodotus is not equivalent to any of the major holy scriptures and should be cited in detail. Same goes for the Mudrarakshasa, and if the footnote that supports it doesn't contain anything but the title, which is already mentioned as an in-text citation, it might as well be removed. It's also important to be careful when you using primary sources. Both of these works are very ancient and citing them directly could easily lead to a level interpretation which might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The Mudrarakshasa is especially tricky since it's a play, albeit historical in nature. The information might very well be allegorical or simply added for dramatic purposes. It would be best to cite writers who have commented these works instead of the works themselves. Peter Isotalo 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Isotalo 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that only one outside person is commenting, beyond the replies from three of the four main editors, is there anyone else out there who wants to comment on this article? Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would benefit the review to see more comments from the other main editors. Peter Isotalo 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This other editor is on the road, and won't be able to get to things until Monday. Montana, PRs usually last a couple of weeks, we can wait a bit (grins). You're as impaitent as your Arabians... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Actually, my horses teach ME patience! Peter and I probably just have to agree to disagree until more people weigh in. Montanabw(talk) 20:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can someone summarize what i'm supposed to be addressing? The joys of being on the road means that I've lost track here... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to misstate Peter's concerns, so I'll let him add his own summary, but I think the main issue is if a) we have too many sources, and b) why can't we consolidate some of them. Other than that, some of his comments I have addressed (I'm even replacing that "Eating up Italy" ref that is admittedly a weak one), and others I think we may just be sniping over minutae that isn't a deal-killer. But Peter, maybe it's best you summarize where you are at as of now on all this stuff for Ealdgyth? Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Peter. I can understand your concerns about the vast number of sources used, and admit that there could be some consolidation. The situation has arisen mainly because the article has grown organically, with contributions by a number of editors, each of whom have access to different sources. Due to the breadth of the article, both in time and geography, it has also been important to access a number of texts. Some of the minor, weak sources can be removed or replaced, but I feel that the majority must remain. This article is frequently accessed by people who have little prior knowledge, who will benefit from having citations to refer to (bear in mind WP is never a primary source); also, it can be plagued by those who have taken their information from films and re-enactments (etc), and we have worked hard to weed out myths and misinformation, and provide sources for each claim. More to the point, this conforms to
MOS, which states:
The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited.[...] In general, any statement for which a citation has been explicitly requested by another editor should be provided with one as well. Beyond this, editors are encouraged to cite any statement that is obscure or difficult to find in the available sources, as well as any significant statement in general. There is no numerical requirement for a particular density of citations or for some predetermined number of citations in an article; editors are expected to use their best judgement as to how much citation is appropriate. When in doubt, cite; additional citations are harmless at worst, and may prove invaluable in the long term.. Gwinva (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I prefer discussing specific issues in this article, not the guidelines of WP:MILHIST nor general reference policies. The feel that the following issues still need to be addressed:
Peter, at this point, your opinions have been heard, acknowledged and have been thoroughly considered, and some integrated into the article. However, this is a peer review where we need the eyes of more than just one person. This whole discussion has now degenerated into you continually repeating variations on your views in a matter that belongs back on the article talk page, and, in case you haven't noticed, while some of your individual comments have been well-taken, your overall approach is not achieving consensus with other editors. You have also become something of an editor on the article yourself. Here we need eyes of people who aren't as close to the article, and the whole debate over how much sourcing is needed on articles in general is too big for this forum and is not a battle to be fought here. So please take this to the article talk page itself because what we wanted here was an outside peer review from multiple eyes. Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montana, if you first ask for a summary from an editor and then follow it up by telling that person to shut up and go away, you're not giving the appearance of taking the review seriously. It's tactless, bordering on nasty. I think it would be better if the other contributors would take up the dialog concerning this problem, even if it might take a bit more time to resolve. The issue of the article bias has not been discussed in the least, and I can't see that it is attributable to either lack of sources or relevance to the article topic. I'll try to illustrate the problems as clearly as possible with more examples:
The historical information related to European and North American armies outweighs the information concerning the rest of the world with a ratio of something like 3:1. "The Americas" contains more info on 100 years of North American history than there is about East Asia combined (and the passing comments of China and Japan found in other sections don't really make up for it). "The Middle Ages" is larger than the entire section on Asia. The article mentions Congreve rockets, coursers and what kind of horse William the Conqueror used at Hastings, but not the Parthian shot. Aspects of horses in warfare that are European or belong to the classic Mediterrenean civilizations get extensive coverage, even when they are highly marginal in the five millenia covered by the article. Horse artillery gets its very own section, while mounted archery is basically ignored and isn't even linked.
Peter Isotalo 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Peter, I don't think that Montana meant to be nasty. However, discussion about cutting information from the article should probably be taken to the talk page of the aricle, as she recommended. If you have specific rewrites that you would like to propose there, please do so. I think it has been made obvious between responses from Ealdgyth, Montana, Gwinva and myself that we do not really agree with your position on extraneous sources, and you will notice below that Dr. pda made no comments about this. So I think that point has been resolved for now. As to the length and bias issues. Part of it, from what I understand (although correct me if I'm wrong) is that horse warfare didn't really change all that much in the middle east. They started out using small, fast horses, and they kept using fast light horses until the cavalry disappeared. However, in Europe horseback warfare continually changed and developed. The Asia section is about the same length as the Americas section. However, let's take the length/bias issue to the talk page, where you will see I have started a new section discussing this, as it is probably more relevant there, and will also be easier to edit, as this peer review is getting rather unwieldy. Dana boomer (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain this on the talkpage, but I don't believe I've seen anything approaching a good explanation yet. This is POV-issue and in my opinion is enough to keep the article from becoming an FAC.
Peter Isotalo 09:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda

You're actually ahead of the game to have got this much commentary on a peer review. Many peer reviews languish for several days before the hardworking User:Ruhrfisch (or one of a handful of others) provides a few comments!

First let me point out that it's the size of the readable prose, not the size of the text in the edit window which is the relevant measure. According to

WP:SIZE guidelines (Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose.) Last time I checked
there were 170 current FAs longer than this one. The article seems to make good use of summary style, so its overall length should not be a problem. The matter of balance between different sections of the article is a different matter, which has already been raised above. I would tend to agree that the size of the Europe section should be more in keeping with that of other continents.

Some general comments:

The copyright status of the images, or at least the image descriptions, needs a look as well

  • Uploader's caption says made in 6th century. I think it's OK, not sure how to find out?
  • Having reread the image description, I think I was being overly cautious before. I think it's clear that this is a 6th century artifact in a museum, photographed by the uploader, so it's fine. I've tidied up the image description.Dr pda (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a bit of digging and found this is part of a carpet located in the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. You can see the carpet in a virtual tour of the room, and the horseman in particular in this image. The quality and metadata of the uploaded image are consistent with a non-professional photograph, so this one again is fine, and I have again tidied up its image description. Dr pda (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Higueruela.jpg - another one where there is an identical version on commons (which is not a problem). However both claim to be created by the uploader and licenced under GFDL. Presumably the artists mentioned (at least one of whom lived 400 years ago) were the ones who actually created the image, unless this is a photograph by the uploader, and the GFDL is referring to the photograph. The uploader fortunately still seems to be active, so you could probably ask him to clarify the situation, and/or correct the image description page.
  • Here, the uploader has been deleted from wikipedia. Any advice about what to do now? Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it was the uploader of the previous image who is still active. I've looked around on the web, and this image is comparable in quality to other photographs taken of these frescos. Looking at the contributions of the uploader around this period, he appears to have an awareness of copyright issues, and uploaded what are clearly personal photos with the same tag (GFDL-self) as here, so I think this one is probably fine as well. Dr pda (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any advice on what's needed here? We had a different image a while back, is it worth looking for a "safer" image to switch back? Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually images taken in a public place of a public event pass muster, though Ealdgyth would be the expert on this. Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific comments:

  • Per
    WP:BOLDTITLE
    if the title of a page is descriptive and does not appear verbatim in the main text, then it should not be in boldface.
    • Tweaked the first sentence so that the title does appear verbatim.
      Made additional minor tweak. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5,000 in the first sentence has a comma, but 4000 and 3000 in the next line (and indeed most if not all of the four digit dates) don't.
    • Removed the comma from the first sentence. Also checked the rest of the dates and didn't find any more commas. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a well-written summary of the article.
  • The first two paragraphs under Types of horses used in warfare could probably do with reworking of the prose to make them a bit sharper. The first paragraph seemed to repeat itself a little bit, and the clause about modern-day handicapping is probably unnecessary. The second paragraph could lose a couple of the "horses can/could pull"s.
  • Removed bit on handicapping. Haven't yet touched the rest of the prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did a little prose tweaking. See if that did the trick. Someone else strike the comment if it looks fixed to you. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the European Middle Ages, one light type of horse became known as a palfrey, another was the rouncey. This seems to be tacked on the end of its paragraph; how did the two differ? Is it necessary to mention them here? I think the rouncey is mentioned later on.
    • Palfreys weren't war horses at all, but they were very popular riding horses. I removed the reference to Palfreys. That said, someone later might claim a Rouncey IS a palfrey, when is wasn't -- many "Middle Ages 101" books claim there were only Palfreys and Destriers...sigh... I think that was in the back of our minds when Palfreys were included. And actually, knights would sometimes ride a palfrey TO the battle, then switch to the Destrier. This may be a bigger issue, but for now... Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • equid should be linked or defined on its first mention
  • Whether horses were trained for pulling chariots, to be ridden as light cavalry, heavy cavalry, or as the destrier of the armoured knight, much training was required to overcome the horse's natural instinct to flee from noise, the smell of blood, the confusion of combat, and learn to accept any sudden or unusual movements of their riders when utilizing a weapon or avoiding one. This sentence is possibly a bit long and winding. The items in the various lists are not parallel in construction, and and learn to does not follow grammatically from the previous clause. A possibly better version might be Whether horses were trained to pull chariots, to be ridden as light or heavy cavalry, or to carry the armoured knight, much training was required to overcome the horse's natural instinct to flee from noise, the smell of blood, and the confusion of combat. Horses also had to learn to accept any sudden or unusual movements of their riders when using a weapon or avoiding one; developing balance and agility was crucial.
    • Swiped your phrasing for the first bit (grin), clarified the second referred to the horse. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's not entirely clear who needs to be developing balance, the rider or the horse?
    • Both, but here, the ref is to the horse. Fixed, see above. 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It became accustomed to any necessary tack and protective armour placed upon it, as well as learn to balance under a rider who would also be laden with weapons and armour. Here's another sentence where learn to does not follow grammatically from what precedes it.
    • Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Tweaked so we didn't say "the horse" in three consecutive sentences. Rearranged some stuff so riding and driving in separate paras and general principles kept in intro.Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of bit wear appeared on the teeth of horses at the archaeology sites of Botai and Kozhai 1 in northern Kazakhstan, as early as 3500-3000 BC. Presumably the teeth still exist, so it should be appears. Also the current phrasing suggests the archaeological sites were excavated in 3500–3000 BC.
  • [[Ancient Rome|Romans] - missing ]
  • Widespread use appears to owe much to the Vikings, who spread the usage of the stirrup in the 9th and 10th centuries. - widespread use ... spread ..usage. A bit repetitive.
  • The first archaeological evidence of horses used in warfare was between 4000 and 3000 BC perhaps "dates from between" rather than "was between"?
  • In those locations, not long after domestication of the horse, people began to live together in large fortified towns for protection from horseback-riding raiders,[57] who could attack and escape faster than villagers could follow,[63] and thus posed an extreme threat to the more sedentary cultures they encountered.[64] This would perhaps read better as At that time, not long after domestication of the horse, people in those locations began to live together in large fortified towns for protection from horseback-riding raiders,[57] who could attack and escape faster than villagers could follow.[63]
    • I fussed with that one for ages and never nailed it. Your ideas broke it loose. I incorporated some of your phrasing. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the first evidence of chariot use are the burials of the Andronovo (Sintashta-Petrovka) culture in modern Russia and Kazakhstan, dated to approximately 2000 BC. - need to explain how these burials are evidence.
  • Chariots were known in the Minoan civilization, inventoried on storage lists from Knossos in Crete,[71] dating to around 1450 BC.[72] - need some sort of connective before inventoried, e.g. and were
    • Did not want to overdo the passive voice or say "were" too many times. Tried a rephrase, not sure it solved the problem, but at least it's different. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the earliest examples of horses being ridden in warfare were archers or spear-throwers mounted on horseback how about just were mounted archers or spear throwers?
    • OK. But some idiot will inevitably ask, "mounted on what?" so kept in the word "horse." (grin) Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a heavier, more muscled horse developed to carry the additional weight. developed all by itself, or was developed, i.e. bred?
    • This has been brought up before. In horse lingo, "developed" indicates the long process of using selective breeding to create a breed or type, while "bred" indicates a simple crossing of two animals. I did a link to "selective breeding" and a small rephrase, does that work? Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavalry was not used extensively during the Roman Republic period, but by the time of the Roman Empire, they developed and made use of heavy cavalry.[83][84]However, the backbone of the Roman army was the infantry.[85] - needs rewording. "They" is unspecified; the previous sentence is talking about the Chinese! "period" is redundant. How exactly did they develop heavy cavalry, or did they just copy it from their enemies, e.g. the Persians or Parthians or whoever?
    • Did some rewording and rearranging. See what you think of my tweak on that section. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term cataphract describes some of the tactics, armour, and weaponry of mounted units used from the time of the Persians up until the Middle Ages.[86] this is too vague. Do you mean that heavy armoured cavalry on the Persian model were, or continued to be called, cataphracts up to the Middle Ages?
    • I put this up with the Persians, I believe that yes, the Persian model was the root of heavy cavalry for centuries. But someone else needs to clarify that, I don't have the source text. It's there for a reason, I think. Help, anyone? (Didn't strikc this out until we clarify it) Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • but also free in its movement unexplained jargon, though admittedly one of the few places where this struck me.
    • I was using the phrasing of the source. Rephrased for clarity. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A major proponent of the change to riding horses from chariots was Wu Ling, Who was Wu Ling?
    • Found article on him and wikilinked. Rest is covered by footnote. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They used horse cavalry to drive the Spanish out of Araucania - isn't the word horse redundant here?
  • Note 1 gives its reference as a footnote, but note 3 lists them inline (and note 2 has none). Consistency again.

I think I've about reached my recommended daily intake for horses :) Looking over my comments a number of them are to do with prose, so I would suggest that once you've done all the fixing and polishing of the article you get someone to go through and copyedit. Hope these comments are useful. Dr pda (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the detailed problem list. So.. when are you going to work on Epikleros? (grins). We'll get on this, although I'll leave the detailed prose fixes to the others. I planned to ask a couple of folks to review the prose when the PR is done before going to FAC, I've found that a good copyedit works better when it's not at PR. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I am working on Epikleros, just offline, which is why you haven't seen anything :) I've read all the current references, 8 of a further 12 books sitting on my desk, with probably as many more on my list to consult, and my handwritten notes currently fill 10 pages! Dr pda (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this! As an update to everyone else, I've struck out a few things that I fixed, and also struck out the images that were fine, to make it easier to find the ones that need work. Yell at me if this is a problem :) I'm probably not going to be online much more tonight, at least to work on this article, so everyone else feel free to go ahead... Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks also, Dr pda, though it will take us some time to review everything, on first glance it appears you have picked up on the sorts of things we were looking for -- when we have lapsed into gibberish or have FA-killer problems with something! LOL! I'll review the wordsmithing issues (that's what I do a lot of here) and see if I can do some cleanup. I do have a question on the WP:ACCESS concerns on images, I am all for doing these correctly, but the format issues confuse me terribly, I've heard conflicting advice (as in it is/is not ever OK to put a left justified image after a level three header, etc). Are there some additional guidelines that we can look at to help? I'm also a bit confused by your comments on the copyright status of images, your specifics are outstanding, but I'm lacking in the basics underlying your concerns -- I thought Commons admins and the magic wikigods reviewed these and unless it was something blatent like a copyrighted image with no fair use tag, we were OK...? Just point me to some articles that provide guidance beyond the basics of GDFL, I guess...help?? Montanabw(talk) 00:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status of images is in many ways similar to the situation with facts being cited to reliable sources! Unfortunately Commons admins and the magic wikigods do not check for these things any more than fact/source checking happens here, with the exception that now there are some bots which check for things like no licensing tags. Older images may have little or no source information, and may or may not be free (cf. articles with no inline cites, or cites to unreliable sources), while images added more recently, or by experienced wikipedians, usually have more sourcing information, and more attention to copyright details (cf properly formatted cites to reliable sources). You may find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches useful. Oh, and I don't have any issues with you striking out my comments above, though at FAC it's a different story. Dr pda (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On access we want to go with Sandy, and the pics I'll run by Awa or Masem before FAC. Easier to check before than during FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes, maybe check diffs to be sure I didn't make anything worse instead of better. Ealdgyth, have you contacted your image gurus or...? Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the remaining "something-th century"s to use numerals. One other thing I noticed while in edit mode is that some sentences start with two spaces, others start with one. A consistent style should be chosen. Dr pda (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck this, was reading the MOS today, and it doesn't matter since the browser displays it the same either way. Dr pda (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda regarding The Americas section: It's good to see a bit more material in this section to balance up the coverage, though the prose still needs a little bit of work. Also, could we have a bit more about the use of horses by Native (North) Americans—all we are told is that they became renowned horseback fighters. Specific comments:

  • Horses were particularly useful as a weapon of war in the Americas. - This statement needs clarification or expansion, i.e. How? Why? More so than in other parts of the world?, or could just be dropped.
  • Essentially, that's an intro to the next sentence, which explains that the horse was extinct for 10,000 years, so when the Conquistadors showed up with horses, they terrified the indigenous people and made initial conquest a piece of cake. That's one of those really core concepts that sometimes we horse geeks (pointing at self) forget to explain. Have you any suggestions for how I can make this clearer? Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • considerable advantage provided by European horses and gunpowder weapons ... horses and gunpowder provided a crucial edge. - these phrases in two successive sentences seem a bit repetitive.
  • Will look at that and see if we can wordsmith it a bit. Thanks for pointing it out. Always good to cut redundancies! Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Indian people quickly learned to use horses. I assumed here that Indian=original inhabitants of what is now the USA, which seemed out of place since we had just been talking about European victories over the Aztec and Inca, who I thought were further south. Perhaps make it a bit clearer what is meant here. We also get However, indigenous populations also learned to use horses. in the next paragraph referring to South America
    Yeah, I think we need to work on that. I suppose consistency is good. When I wrote the North American bit, it reflects that I live in a place with a large Native American population, and as individuals, they get sick of being called "indigenous people," and tell me to just say "Indian," usually adding that they feel tremendous relief that Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beware of
    overlinking
    —most readers will know of North America, South America, Chile. The year 1586 should not be wikilinked.
  • Mapuche began using cavalry ... They used cavalry - watch out for repetition again.
  • Would be a good idea to give approximate dates for American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, Mexican War for non-US readers such as myself.
  • Good point, exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for! Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Continental Army made relatively little use of cavalry horses-did they make greater use of horses for some other purpose? If so, what? If not, probably don't need both cavalry and horses.
  • Well, yes, in that everyone rode horses because there weren't any cars, they used them to pull wagons and in the military there were some dragoons, plus some individual state militias had small cavalry units. I probably tried to oversimplify. WIll see if I can wordsmith, and if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cavalry reached the highest position it would ever hold in the American military. - "highest position" is unclear. Do you mean something like greatest importance?
  • Yes, I was using the phrasing of the source, will wordsmith. Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • horses were used on the battlefield - how?
  • Original sandboxing explained that mules were useless on the battlefield because they panicked and could not be controlled. (Mules are smart, they knew they were in a dangerous place!). I had put the bit about Mule behavior into the article under the "Other Equids" section, and felt it redundant here, but you are right that now the sentence sounds funny. Will do some thinking on the point... (is redundancy in two different sections worse than just cutting the sentence and leaving the potential misunderstanding that mules pulled artillery to the battles, but not being clear that they weren't used on the battlefield itself?) Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final two paragraphs both deal with the Civil War, so should probably be combined into one paragraph.
  • In the last paragraph you could probably omit some of the details about the Civil War, to clarify the point you're trying to make about the use of horses. E.g. we probably don't need both were from the South and joined the Confederacy. Likewise we probably don't need to know that the Battle of Brandy Station was early in the Gettysburg campaign.
  • Will look at that. The second sentence for sure, as for the first, there were some southern officers who joined the Union (Winfield Scott among them), so that point actually matters to Civil War aficionados. Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Follow up: I kept the Gettysburg ref because of the significance of that overall campaign (Gettysburg/Civil War=Normandy Invasion/WWII), but did some wordsmithing and chopped some other verbiage, hope an improvement. Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the initial battlefield superiority of the South due to their more experienced cavalry officers?
  • Yep. And better horses. They bred more saddle horses and race horses in the south, but my source for that was tagged as iffy by Ealdgyth, so I cut that bit. Could re-add it, but the source is a re-enactment club's monthly newsletter--I know there are probably better sources out there, but I don't have access to them. Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • South is capitalised the first time, but not the second time.
  • Oops. Will fix. In Civil War usage, capitalization is used. Thanks for all your help! Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr pda (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look Doc and see if it's better now? Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's an improvement, although the date ranges for the wars should use ndashes (–) rather than hyphens (-) :) However I still don't feel the first couple of paragraphs are quite right. For instance the new first sentence reads sort of like "horses were extinct therefore horses were useful". As I see it there are three main ideas—devastating impact of horses of Conquistadors on Central/South American peoples, subsequent use of horses by indigenous peoples in North America, and subsequent use of horses by indigenous peoples in South America. I would suggest rearranging things so each of these has its own paragraph. How about something like the following:

The horse had been extinct in the Western Hemisphere for approximately 10,000 years prior to the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors in the early 16th century. Consequently the indigenous people had no warfare technologies that could overcome the considerable advantage provided by European horses and gunpowder weapons; this resulted in the swift conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires. The speed and increased impact of cavalry contributed to a number of early victories by European fighters in open terrain, though their success was limited in more mountainous regions. The Incas' well-maintained roads in the Andes enabled quick mounted raids, such as those undertaken by the Spanish while resisting the siege of Cuzco in 1536–7.

The indigenous populations of South America soon learned to use horses. In Chile, the Mapuche began using cavalry in the Arauco War in 1586. They drove the Spanish out of Araucania at the beginning of the 17th century. Later, the Mapuche conducted mounted raids known as Malones, first on Spanish, then on Chilean and Argentine settlements until well into the 19th century.

In North America Native Americans also quickly learned to use horses. In particular, the people of the Great Plains, such as the Comanche and the Cheyenne, became renowned horseback fighters. By the 19th century, they presented a formidable force against the United States Army.

Dr pda (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like your ideas. Was off wiki for a day and a half and now have about 70 pages on my watchlist with edits, a number of which I may have to re-edit, (arrgh) so may be a bit before I get to this (doh!)  !!!! Montanabw(talk) 20:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Follow up --done. Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed
    WP:SS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Incidentally, the difficulty with the image could possibly be solved by taking the mirror image of it. It is a detail from a carpet, and this image from the museum where it is shows the horseman (or at least a similar one) facing the other way. (Though I know the MOS says not to do this just to comply with the image guidelines). However, what I really wanted to say was that the formatting of the citations needs some attention.
      • There are at least two citations to a pdf where format=pdf has not been used (current refs 35 and 193).
      • The formatting of dates is inconsistent, in some cases even within the same reference, e.g. current reference 3: Park, Alice (2006-05-28). "Bred for Speed...Built for Trouble". TIME, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198889,00.html. Retrieved on 7 November 2008. Use either the day month year style, or the ISO-like style but not both.
      • Some citations have a comma after the title and/or author, others don't, e.g. ref 4 "Edwards, G., The Arabian, p. 19", but ref 5 "Nicolle Crusader Knight p. 14". Ref 80 does not have the title italicised, and ref 47 has the page numbers italicised. Ref 195 is also incorrectly italicised.
        • I think I got all of these, although there's always the possibility that I missed some. Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some refs eg 135–138 are using hyphens instead of ndashes for page ranges. Also some refs are using p. instead of pp. for multiple pages, e.g. ref 16.
        • Again, I think I got all of them, but someone else may want to take a fast run through. Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 10 appears to contain a footnote as well as a citation.
        • I removed the note, as I haven't been able to find a reference for it. If someone thinks we really need it, and can find a source for it, they can go ahead and add it back in using the notes format. Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finally in the list of references, when an author has multiple works, their name doesn't need to be linked every time, e.g. Ann Hyland.
    • You may find my script User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js helpful for editing the references. I think Ealdgyth has it installed already. Dr pda (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Horses_in_warfare/archive1&oldid=1083556696"