Talk:Appaloosa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent edits and citation format

Per the edit history of this article over the past week, I did a little cleanup, keeping what appeared to be the best of some of the word tweaks and new material. Cleaned up and expanded the controversies section, tossed a possibly dubious statement that had been fact tagged for quite a while, other assorted bits and pieces.

Comment on citations to avoid future edit wars: Overall, wikipedia guidelines prefer footnotes to inline citations, and overall it's best to follow them here. However, for the purpose of links to photographs, given that wikipedia itself has few examples but we want an illustration, I am OK with the inline links at those places only. It's a little awkward to have both forms, but if we consider the inlink links a stopgap measure until wikimedia commons has actual photos we can insert into the article, it works for me.

Oh, and all you Appy people, get out those digital cameras and start snapping photos of striped, hooves, mottled skin, etc... Wikipedia needs your help! (smile) See Commons--upload file for more info. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pre-pre review

• Lede. WAYYY short. We want two or three hefty paragraphs here.
• Citations. Lots of them. For this size I'd expect at least twice this many.
• Gotta get rid of the external links inside the text of the article. GA will shoot you down asap for that.
• Popular culture. GA hates these, but you can do them if they are bigger than this one. And you left off John Wayne's black appy that's in a couple of films with him! Might also mention the appy son of Secretariat.
• Consider starting a ApHC article and move some of that stuff over there. It'll look neater and you can prune some of the external links over there too.
• Try to expand the first two subsections of the History section. Or combine them. Right now they are so short, they overpower the Nez Perce sections and make them look too big
• Consider an "influences on other breeds" or "influences from other breeds" section.
• Uses section. Also explain the costume class they used to have.
• Im pretty sure the license plate is wrongly tagged on Commons. The tag that is on it only applies to the Federal gov, and the plate is from a state gov.
• If the weather ever gets warm AND sunny here, I'll trek to the stable and take some shots. Couple of appys there.

I'm just dead dog tired tonight. I'll try to throw some fact tags at places and throw some citations up tomorrow. And comb over this more thoroughly. It's not that far off, honestly. Clean up clean up clean up. That's the main thing.Ealdgyth | Talk 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, get a good night's sleep! What's your position on footnotes in the lead section, and to what extent do you recommend "parroting" info that appears later on? (i.e. taking the first sentence of various sections almost verbatim...Intros are the bane of my existence) Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have good luck with taking a sentence from most every paragraph, although it may not be the first sentence. Sometimes I'll chose a particularly juicy piece to put up top. Of course, most of my GAs have been medieval bishops, so juicy is relative. I usually write the lede shortly before i submit to GA. I only footnote direct quotations, and have only had one (out of ten) GA's request a footnote for anything but a quotation in the lede. Thick ledes get you brownie points, when I review. I think 7/8s of the review's I've done have had to have the lede bulked up. They aren't just the bane of your existence. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an ApHC article already started. It had been wikilinked farther down the article, but I also wikilinked it when it's first mentioned in the history section. I'm not totally sure what information should be moved over there, but just putting it out there that it does exist. Also, since GA's seem to prohibit in-text photo links, is it allright that I go through and take them all out? Montana, I know you said on your talk page that there'd been an argument over them...but if we want GA? Dana boomer (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the external links to the ApHC affliates would be good over on the ApHC article. Maybe the ApHC site itself too, but that's not quite so big a deal. Also the details on the registration should probably go with the ApHC article, with a cross link to the breed article. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm up and going to look over and see what might need fact tags now... don't freak Dana, I'm known for being a pain about things needing fact tags. If it moves, I want it cited! Ealdgyth | Talk 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More stuff:

• The "Spotted horse in America" subsection, the last sentence says "Each theory has some historical support." We can expand on that, I hope. A brief statement that about who supports each side and expanding on that wouldn't hurt pad the article out. As it is now it looks skimpy.
• If we do an influence section, definitely mention the POA being developed from the Appy. Isn't there an Appy Sport horse registry? And the AraAppaloosa?

More as I think of it. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okies, found some articles and my whopping two books on the Appy. I'll try to get some of this stuff into the article this evening. Gotta go run errands first. Whee. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And entered. Added some data. There is a GREAT shot of an Appy in a pre-WWI circus tent for the Barnun & Bailey folks that I'll try to scan in soon, as well as a great one of the same time frame in a Roman standing circus act. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Allright, all in-text photo links are gone (I think, unless I missed one, which is always possible). Also, the registration and external links sections have been fairly well pruned through removal of information to the ApHC article (and the two articles are cross linked). Tomorrow I'll probably work on extrapolating a uses section from all of the various uses mentioned, as well as taking as stab at the lead. Depends on how busy work is as far as how much of this I actually get done! Looking forward to seeing the pics, Ealdgyth... Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

errp! That means I actually have to do it, huh? I do think I've mined out my books. I do think we should mention the various classes in shows that the ApHC runs that aren't in other breed shows. As I recall they are the keyhole and the costume class, and some others? Ealdgyth | Talk 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I like what is happening. I am going to restore the national links, though, because we can hold the line on national organizations (there won't be many) but when there is just one group, then a) All the state clubs start adding their sites, which is an ongoing PITA, and b) the people in other countries start ranting at us for being "American-centric." So letting the clubs in other nations stay seems to, paradoxically, keep down the number of minor club links. I will source the Lewis and Clark quote directly (the actual source was the appy club page, but it IS in the journals, just have to find a set to verify off of), will maybe tweak some other things with appropriate edit summaries to explain what I'm up to. If you guys aren't thrilled, just tweak away. Oh, and on the breeds thing, that is going to be tricky, as you may have noticed, there is a debate over when something is a new "breed" and when it's a marketing ploy for someone's farm. (And why the AraAppaloosa exists is beyond me because ApHC lets in half-Arabs, but oh well...somebody got in a fight with somebody else and took all their marbles to start their own club, I guess.). However, the POA is a definite breed, we need to take a REAL careful look at the rest, which include the Ranger Horse, the Tiger Horse, the "Spanish Jennet Horse" (see that discussion), the Walkaloosa, and god knows what else. There is a part of me that really asks which of these need promotion and which the Appy people wish would just go away...oh yes, and the Nez Perce horse is mentioned in the article, in passing (why people want to cross an Akhal-Teke on an Appy is beyond me, isn't that like crossing a border collie on a coyote = smart AND evil?(grin) I mean, I KNOW someone who has an Appy-Mustang cross and if that horse had an opposable thumb it would take over the planet! ). Anyway, this one is looking like a fun project, though I dread that onslaught that comes with GA nominations... Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ranger horse is easy. They trace to Linden Tree and err.. Leopard that President Grant got. Arabians from the desert. That's where the Robards' horses got their spots, one of his foundation dams traced to them, I believe. I'll have to dig... it's somewhere. Whether it's actually sourceable to Wikipedia, is another story. It's part of the "QH history files" and very well may be an original letter or communication to me from someone. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. nope. Same source though. Joker B's dam was Blue Vitrol, who was out of Leopard who was out of a mare by Primero. That Primero daughter's dam was a mare by "Arab" who I think I figured out was "Barnum's Arab" and may possibly be the Leopard that was Grant's. Leopard's certainly quite the suggestive name anyway... Ealdgyth | Talk 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, given Arabian genetics, "Leopard" may have been either a sabino horse or a majorly fleabitten gray! LOL! (Somewhere I think I did read that he was a gray...) Montanabw^(talk) 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One was supposed to be a Barb, the other was an Arabian. I'm for bed! Ealdgyth | Talk 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Barbs didn't have the Leopard gene, either! (LOL). And actually, Leopard WAS an Arab, he has offspring in the AHA studbook (via Anazeh) Linden Tree, though, who knows?? Sources are all over the place on some of this stuff.

I've found a citation for the last fact tag in the article, so all of those are now gone!!!! I think we've covered all of Ealdgyth's suggestions, except maybe that the first two history sections and the appys in film section are still fairly short. Should we do more to expand these, or perhaps combine the history sections? I think we need to be careful about the film section, as it could easily turn into a listing of every B-list movie that's ever had a spotted horse mentioned, but at the moment it's just...short. Other than this, are we about ready for GA review? Dana boomer (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out some more lurking links in the text. We need to standardise the references Wikipedia:Citing sources and all that. Wikipedia:Citation templates is probably the easiest, as it formats the silly things for you. I think we really should expand those sections a bit. I've still got the pictures to scan too. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA pre-review

Starting a new header to make the discussion easier to follow. I really see no harm in a short popular culture section as is (maybe if some famous person owns appys like how William Shatner is into Saddlebreds, we could add that in, or if Appys are sports mascots, like the gray horses all named Traveler (mascot) are for for USC, etc. I agree we don't have to list every B western. But I will make it a subheading of "uses" because, really, that's what this is all about. (The uses section could be expanded a bit, I suppose, but it was 1am last night when I tweaked it and my enthusiasm was limited. I hate the ref template, I know eventually I have to care, but that hasn't stopped an article from going GA yet, even the horribly anal-retentive review I endured over at Arabian horse didn't hammer on the citation format (for FA it will matter, I suppose, can't hure to improve cites, but I don't see it as a priority).

Well, I just got hammered for it on one of mine, so I'll be glad to go through and clean them up shortly. The other thing we kinda have to do is really go through the prose with a fine tooth comb. No contractions, watch for "however" at the start of sentences, etc. etc. I also ran across a reference in one of the articles to some folks that contest the history of the breed? I don't have anything more than that, sorry. But was there some sort of controversy over Francis Haines' research work at one point? When I go through the references and get them standardized, I'll also check that the web sites are 'reliable'. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ouch. Some of this stuff is so "college kid term paper" but then, I think that encompasesses half the admins and 75% of the GA reviewers. However, it is actually acceptable to begin a sentence with "however." (grin) Nonetheless, the more officially grammatical method is the use of a semicolon; however, this has started any number of minor punctuation edit wars. LOL!! BTW, one of these days when I get to it, I'll find a page cite from the Bennett book.

And yeah, spotted some grammar problems and contractions myself, just sort of try and grab a few more every trip through. Not sure which ref has the questioning of history, but tip me off and I'll analyze it and be the bad cop if needed. God knows I "teach the controversy" in these articles often enough, however, if it's like the flat earth theory, I feel no obligation to include it. Fact-checkin' iz me! Montanabw^(talk) 04:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, now. *I* do lots of GA reviews. Yeah, it's a pain, but it should be at least a bit more formal than conversation. I don't usually get too bent out of shape over the prose, but I dislike short paragraphs. They make things hard to read if there are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs. Contractions are a big one for a lot of folks. None of the refs in the article question the history, it's in an article I have in my files. It wasn't the topic of the article, it was mentioned in passing. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Are switched to the templates. Blech. Disturb them at your peril.Ealdgyth | Talk 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just owe you a beer for that or something. I promise not to screw up anything you did, though I still might screw up my own edits (But I have a userbox for that, so everyone has been warned! Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you liked the pictures. But none of striped hooves are going to be coming from here, we're snowing, and due to get up to a foot. BLECH! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wuss. We only have about 6 inches of snow here at the moment, but two nights ago it got down to -20 below here! LOL! Actually is snowing again, hope we don't get a foot, but we DO need the moisture. I'm thinking for striped hooves, we could go on a hunt in Flickr or something and look to see if anyone has a free photo to crop (that's how I found the Appy eye one). Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

NOt that I'm scared of the snow, but it's hard to take pictures of hooves when they are not visible in the snow. And the barn is too dark for photographs. So.. we wait. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to shoot a photo of an ermine spot on one of my horses' legs, in the dark, in the barn, after she had stepped in poop, got back in the house looked at what I got, said "to heck with it" and went hunting in commons for leg photos. Found a good one there! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA push

I think we're getting close. A bit more expansion, and then I suggest we leave it sit for a couple of days, and then everyone go through it with a fine toothed comb, find all the weirdly phrased sentences, etc. And do a last pass through to make sure we're not overlinking things, and make sure the lead is a good summary.Ealdgyth | Talk 04:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak the lead, I did a bit on it yesterday, but really ran out of gas about saying more without getting into too many details (I personally am a fan of a short lead, but no more than about 3 paras, but that's just me), the lead needs someone who didn't write so much of the content to do it, I think. What else do you think needs to be expanded? My creativity is sort of at a low ebb (had a brushfire today because I raced in on a good faith edit but was too snarky, but the edit needed help and it still was a couple of hours' work) I really don't feel much more needs be added to the ancient history section, I made it sort of the intro to the whole history piece, as that European history chunk would also be true of the Knabstrup and other leopard breeds, thus is "generic" to the Lp gene. I'm open to other ideas, though. Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me sleep on it. It's not like I'm going anywhere tomorrow or anything (grins). Ealdgyth | Talk 04:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good read of the article following Montanabw's invitation, and would like to say that it looks really good. It's easy to read and seems comprehensive. So my suggestions now might seem a bit picky, but I offer them for what they're worth.

1. I noticed the repetition of "one parent with Lp gene" in the first sentence of two sections (genetics & colour registration). They had different refs, too
2. Appaloosa#Influence on other breeds seems quite short for its own section, and there's no ref for the final comment
3. Lead paragraph is quite deep and hits a newcomer (well me, anyway) a bit hard; perhaps it says too much, rather than leads in more generally? It's a tricky one: people have different likes; I've met those who hate refs etc there.
4. Our reviewer at Horses in the Middle Ages suggested having notes (eg. Bennet, p 4) and then a list of references; personally, I think yours are quite clear, esp as so many are online, but your reviewer might be the same
5. there's lots of external links, which at first glance just seems a list of clubs but I understand the rationale given. keeping to national ones is a good idea.

Anyway, that's what occurs to me on a first look. Hope it's helpful. Gwinva (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it up. GA Reviewers usually find something to work on, and I think we are close enough, anything flagged should be something I can hit within 24 hours, or anyone else here can jump in too. I'll look over the Bennett cites a bit and see if there are tweaks there. Good Articles need not be perfect articles. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review notes

OK, I'll post things up as I find them: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Appaloosa is a horse breed with preferred characteristics that include coat pattern.[1] It is best known for its leopard spotted coat color and other distinctive physical characteristics, created by the "Lp" or "leopard" gene complex. - sits oddly with me, just sorta leaps into things. I'd change to:

The Appaloosa is a horse breed known for its leopard spotted coat color and other distinctive physical characteristics, with the "Lp" or "leopard" gene complex responsible for preferred characteristics that include coat pattern.[1] - or something like it.

taken care of Ealdgyth | Talk 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

..moved into modern times with - umm, colloquial. Just remove it and rephrase with the org formed in 1938. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

taken care of Ealdgyth | Talk 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just remove the subheading bit Spotted horses in the Americas and combine the two short sections. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

taken care of Ealdgyth | Talk 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to minimise the use of phrases like 'Some scholars/archaeologists/historians believe' bits. I trimmed stuff at the beginning of Spotted horses in the Americas as an example. The vague extra words weren't adding anything to the materialcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

the Appaloosa as a breed had caught the eye of the general public.. - bolded bit is redundant. If you remove it the sentence still keeps its meaning. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

taken care of Ealdgyth | Talk 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A significant crossbreeding influence used to revitalize the Appaloosa was the Arabian horse, - ungainly. How about "Appaloosas were crossbred with Arabians to revitalize.." or something. Also need to expain why they wer chosen. typiness? health? etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Use bold rather than caps lock in Color and spotting patterns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of Ealdgyth | Talk 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Controversy section is cobbled together and artificial. Health issues should be its own section and any other information can be added to it would be helpful. The Color and registration controversy needs to be a subsection of registration as that is what it pertains to. Not sure what it should be called though. Drug rules should be under a subsection of showing somewhere near registration. Come to think of it, there is no mention of annual shows etc. in the article -needs one (prizes/awards etc.)

• In terms of comprehensiveness, as it stands it has a US focus. We have appaloosas here in Australia, and some mention needs to be made of their status/numbers/societies and any differences in the rest of the world.

To summarise, you've done a good job with the flow of the prose, it needs some copyediting (some of which I've done already and noted some more stuff to do above). Beagle is a good example of a breed article to aim for which is a current FA.

I took care of some of the stuff. Not sure about the others, I'm not really very familiar with Apps, so I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge.Ealdgyth | Talk 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll play around with other fixes. Annual shows best not to list, we have Appaloosa Horse Club for that. Also, once shows start getting listed, then every nation, every region, every rodeo and the local pony club starts adding theirs, it gets to be a mess. It's been a problem in other articles. The events section might be able to be expanded a bit, I'll look at that. A couple of the edits actually made info less accurate (the Appy people are touchy about the color rule, hence, not all Appaloosas have to have spots. That "color preference" thing is straight from the breed standard, no matter how weirdly worded it is, I'll try to say the same meaning in a more comprehensible fashion. As for Apps worldwide, if you can shoot us some links, that would be great. That said, the "Appaloosa" is a breed, not just a leopard-spotted horse, there are other spotted breeds...(?) Just take a look at what changes I made and see it that works. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if any edits of mine fudged the meaning. Was being a bit bold- feel free to revert or play around. I'll see what I can find worldwide. Needn't be very much. I raised shows etc. as more of a discussion point as not having had much to do with horses for many years I am not aware of what goes on (plus a different breed and hemisphere...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: What I'd have is a sentence or two on the club under registration, with a mention that clubs exist in europe (all/most/some countries?) and Aus, NZ...I'll see what turns up on other countries as there are some listed on the Appaloosa Horse Club page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

this would appear to have the affiliated groups all in one convenient place :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

OK, I made a small para on organisations, this is what I meant so the paragraph doesn't leap straight into registration then mention the ApHC without explaining who they are. I'd figure it needs a membership figure in it to show relative size next to the other one best. Once this is done I think we are there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understanding here, you want a membership figure on the ApHC? So that it can be compared to the American Appaloosa Association one? Anything else needed? Ealdgyth | Talk 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I think that's it. I think the apporximate membership numbers are good as it gives a feel for the relative sizes between the two bodies. Once done I'll happily pass it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now to just figure that membership number OUT from the ApHC site... been looking since I left the message.. .not found it yet...Ealdgyth | Talk 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. I would have stuck it in myself before but couldn't find it before I had to log off. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• this would appear to give the membership at 32000 (down the page a bit though..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. that's the circulation on the Appaloosa Journal. If it's part of the membership, that's probably a close guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's included in most memberships, so as a rough guess, I'd guess it works. I'll qualify it in the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There, that look good? Ealdgyth | Talk 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Appaloosa Stats

Here is the information I recieved from the Appaloosa Horse Club 2/13/2008

2007 Membership Total = 22,782;

Appaloosa Horse Club Fact Sheet February, 2008

Registration

2007 Registration Statistics Regular (#) Classification 4,308 Non-Characteristic (N) 1,637 Total Registrations 5,945 (12% decrease from 2006)

Marketing Notes

New advertising - Look for the ApHC in the Equestrian Magazine at http://www.equestmagazine.com. The publication will be featuring the Appaloosa in February.

Look for Appaloosas on the internet's latest phenomenon-Nicker Network http://www.nickernetwork.com) The ApHC and Nicker Network will be working together to bring quality Appaloosa images, accurate breed information and historical information to viewers. We are starting with banner ads and will be providing some pictures and video for the breed pages. Both of these great internet magazines will be receiving ApHC press releases and articles.

Reichert Celebration has approved an Appaloosa breed show to be held during the 2008 Reichert Celebration and has submitted an ApHC show application. Reichert is also offering the Reichert Appaloosa & Paint Claiming Halter Futurity. 40 slots are being offered on a first come, first served basis for people primarily involved in the Appaloosa and Paint Horse industry. Slot Fee $1500 ($750 due December 15, 2007, $750 due February 1, 2008.) Nominate your horse by May 15, 2008. Claiming Fee: $12,500 or $15,000 or $20,000 - more information is available on their website at http://reichertcelebration.com

Appaloosa Blog Spot - is reaching more than 4,000 unique visitors each month.

Show

2007 World Show Non-Pro entries - 1,221 Open Halter entries - 393 Open Performance entries - 918 Total entries - 2,532 Total horses - 978

Total entries increased by 10.13% over last year and we were up 35 horses (3.7%) over last year! Entries increased in all divisions (non-pro, halter, performance).

2008 National Show Official Car Sponsor Watson Quality Ford as signed on as the official vehicle sponsor for the Youth/National Shows. This sponsorship places them as a Platinum Show sponsor - the first in ApHC history. Their sponsorship for the 3 years includes vehicles for officials and staff, advertising, cash and exhibitor activities.

Preferred Hotels in Jackson Hotels designated as ApHC-preferred for the World Championship Appaloosa Youth Show and 61st National Championship Appaloosa Show - are listed on the National Show page at www.appaloosa.com

Board of Directors

Board Elections Declarations of Candidacy are due Feb 28th.

ApHC Membership

Appaloosa Advantage Program Beginning in 2008, Appaloosa Horse Club (ApHC) members will have more membership perks than ever! The Appaloosa Member Advantage program offers discounts to ApHC members for products on premium brands including Dodge, John Deere, UPS, Sherwin Williams Paint, Toshiba and Office Depot.

Most importantly, there is no charge for ApHC members to activate their Appaloosa Member Advantage!

To begin saving, ApHC members must call

(888) 304-SPOT (7768) to activate the Appaloosa Member Advantage.

2007 Membership Total = 22,782; (Down 1,458 from 2006).

Photos of Appaloosas Under saddle

Please let me know if you want to use any of these. I have all the rights to them as I took them and they are my horses. I am not a wiki guru so use what you want.

http://www.barnbuddy.net/gallery2/v/S_B/dec2007/

http://www.barnbuddy.net/gallery2/v/S_B/fanny2007/

Striped hooves and White Scelera

http://www.barnbuddy.net/gallery2/v/S_B/cookiefilly/

Going to put this up for Wikipedia:Peer Review

Unless anyone objects, I'll put this up for PR in the next day or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey, but it's SCARY! LOL Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments/Next steps

I've worked my way through the comments on the peer review page, and have a few comments/questions on what else should be tweaked in the article:

• On the peer review page, I've made several comments on recommendations or tweaks that I've made, if someone wouldn't mind checking those out.

• Should we move the original information and citations from the lede to the body of the article?

• Should the references be changed to include author data on the website cites, and should the journal/book articles be changed to a notes/references format like we are using in Thoroughbred, Arabian horse and Horse?

Just a few thoughts and comments...let me know what you think! Dana boomer (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We probably should move the original information (information that isn't in the body of the text) to the main body also. I was looking at this earlier and the citations need some work. Now that we've made it through one FA, I think we all have a better idea what might come at us. Basing things off of the TB article probably won't hurt. Gary King dislikes the author title page short form, but that's because he's used to scientific articles, which use author year page. Most humanities use author title page, and I find it easier to actually use the references that way, it's easier to know what book is being used most/etc. when you give the title. Most folks remember titles better than years of publication. Note that I did NOT bring a single App reference work with me down to Texas, so I can't do anything on the sections that I did until I get home at the beginning of July. We're probably better off working on American Quarter Horse, since I brought those books with. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As for cites, I like how Gwinva did it in Horses in the Middle Ages best, author, page number, and if the author has multiple books, then author, title and page no. Is that Chicago Manual of style or ALA? I guess maybe that's our first question.: Shall we use humanities citation or scientific citation? From there, all else flows.

For work, my vote is to get Quarter horse to GA and Arabian to FA for now, then circulate back to this. (And, seeing as how E has books and I'm being pokey with paginating from the ones I have, QH could go first) I'm kind of exhausted on this one, though if anyone wants to do the above tweaks, I'll cheer you on. BTW, could we ask the ID dept of highways if they have a free image of that Appy license plate? I really think the license plate is so fun, I miss that it got tossed! Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This week is Region 9 Regionals, so I'm a tad busy with stuff connected with that. Should be easing up Monday, so I'll be more available to work on QH then. (I need to work on bishops too, you know!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I see you are working on refs. I inserted the page numbers for the Deb Bennett book, so you won't be having to wait on me for that one. If youse guyz want to take this one up for FA, I'll support and help with the feeding frenzy, but let me know if there's stuff you need me to do, as I'm sort of scattered around a bunch of things both on wiki and in real life. Kind of in "squeaky wheel gets the grease" mode. Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me if we focus on the QH and Arab articles first. I just had some extra time yesterday at work and so decided to play with cites and some copyediting. Montana, thanks for the page numbers and c/e! Just to throw it out there, I really prefer (obviously, since I do it in every article), using the author, title, page format across the board. IMHO, it makes the reference listing look better/more consistent (it's really just a more or less pretty thing, but w/e). Maybe today I'll toddle on over and play with the cites in the Quarter Horse article... And tomorrow, I should have a couple of hours with nothing to do at the library, so maybe I'll find some more book cites for all of these articles... Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This one may be close to FA, I guess I only have so much energy, that's all. If you want to lead the FA push, Dana, I'll co-nom and support. Just am not necessarily in a place where I can handle a lot of debate right now. Usually I am pretty OK with contentious spats, but lately I've just been tired of the little wikiwars, Nothing cosmic, just don't want to disappoint anyone. Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should probably wait on nominating this for FA until Ealdgyth gets back home with all her books, in order to be as prepared for the onslaught as we can be. There isn't really any hurry for FA here, and there's plenty of other stuff we can work on. Dana boomer (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Questionable sources (in my mind) -

• http://www.reining-appaloosa.com/PuzzleWorthSolving.htm (looks like a personal site) - Switched out
• http://www.newhorizonsfarm.co.za/breed.htm (dead link)
• http://www.equinecolor.com/
• http://members.tripod.com/horsefame/appaloosa.html (personal site) - Switched out
• http://horsefame.tripod.com/stunt3.html (same) - Switched out
• http://www.blindappaloosas.org/index.html - Switched out the two links that went only to this site. Left in two others that cited the journals where the information on the site came from. Does this work?

I'm OK with your changes. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at what might need to be sourced that isn't yet. Also, given our success with TB, we might want to structure the article like that more. Do you think we'll get queries on the value of the horses, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "like that more"? What needs to be changed? (Grin)

The blind appaloosas site is extremely well-referenced from peer-reviewed materials, but ones primarily available in hardcopy. (I happen to know these people, too, though that doesn't matter with wiki, we've been discussing genetic diseases in horses on occasion for a couple years, they get a lot of calls). They could probably ref each statement to their original material if we asked, though that might be something of an imposition. They run this outfit and their research on animal health issues is impeccable. I'd actually go to the mat to defend their work on this. (Possible their page is actually footnoted itself? -- didn't I cite to the original works way back before we started tweaking citations?). I doubt anyone is going to ask about the value of Appaloosas because they don't have the economic impact on the world at large that TBs do. And if they do, we have to admit there are also no good records, really, nothing like the Keeneland sales. Unless maybe there are one or two big annual sales somewhere that may set the top end? Dana, you are the Appy guru, aren't you? Do you know?

Also If you guys want to surf my talk page, AppHistorian posted a link there to a bunch of photos that s/he is willing to upload to wiki if we want them, may be worth considering?? Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My solution to the sourcing issues on the genetics stuff is to source directly to the hard copy. I've got access to a lot of this stuff through various university libraries, so I might take a look there and see if I can find it. I know that its easier for most people to see sources online, but for FA they seem to be more in favor of hard copy sources (books, articles, etc).

There definitely aren't big auctions for Apps the way there are for TBs. There are a few smaller auctions that auction off breedings, but not huge auctions actually selling horses (especially tons of youngstock). Racing is such a huge business that it has an actual impact on various economies; Appaloosas, not so much. IMHO, no-one will ask about this (just watch someone prove me wrong as soon as we put it up for FA...)

I'll take a look through your talk page and see if I can find those photos (I'm also thinking the links may have been posted on this talk page, I'll have to look when I'm done typing), and see if there's anything we want to use. Also, my App will be getting a bath and trim this weekend, so I might take some pics and see if I get anything good. There are a couple of pics in the article (the blanket apps butt, for one) that I'm not fond of, so maybe we'll find something good to replace them with. Just my thoughts! Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blindappaloosas has all their sources listed, I know that much, seems like some are in pdfs somewhere (they may have put them up there, can't remember)

If you are shooting photos, we definitely NEED a photo of the striped feet and it would be nice to have a nice close up of the mottled skin around the muzzle! The one photo of the horse with skin mottling doesn't even look like an app, and you have to expand the image to see it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mini-review of App. "Genetics"

Montana sent me this way to give it a read-over. It may be worth making things nice and clear: the LP gene only guarantees "Appaloosa characteristics." I did get a little mired in the "not necessarilies" and vagueness, and as I wrote the LP article and am familiar with the subject matter, that probably indicates that layperson readers will garner little useful information. Technically, the use of "theorizes" is correct, but it may be misleading in context. "Their research shows that Appaloosa or LP gene is responsible for Appaloosa patterning..."

"While there is currently no DNA test for the trait, it is believed that it is a single autosomal dominant locus, and may possibly be a gene-complex rather than a single gene." The GENE is TRPM1, the TRAIT is Leopard complex; without a DNA test for TRPM1, LP couldn't have been assigned to it. I removed "located at" because that is implicit in "locus." Gene-complex isn't linked, and isn't explained, except that by parallelism, it is understood that it is not a single gene.

"It should be noted that not every horse with the Lp gene exhibits hair coat spotting. However, even some solid individuals will exhibit characteristics such as vertically striped hooves, white sclera of the eye, or mottled skin around the eyes, lips, and genitalia." That 2nd sentence really trips me up. Some random individual horses have Appy characteristics? It may be worth tying in ApHC definitions: solid but characteristic have LP, NC do not.

The 2nd paragraph looks solid to me. It reminds me that it is often good to include a mention that LP is inherited separately from any other color genes. People often think - small wonder, as they have these silly books that tell them so! - things along the lines of piebald vs. skewbald; that spots need be a certain color. I hope that this is helpful. Best, Countercanter (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CC! I made a few changes to the Genetics section to hopefully address your comments above, I hope they helped rather than harmed. Mostly minor stuff - making sentences more solid, wikilinking, etc. Please feel free to add information in and reword as you see necessary; it's nice to have a genetics person working on that section!

Also, you say that you removed "located at" but it still appears in the article, and the history doesn't show that you have edited the article recently. Did something go wrong with the save? Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CC, I couldn't find a source for the TRPM1 mapping of LP... I made a couple more tweaks after you and Dana, so can you double check all this? The Terry article is 2004, so is aging in dog years by the standard of genetics stuff these days... Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Footnotes 48 and 50 (2 of the ones with page numbers needed) were probably added by either User:AppHistorian or User:Appaloosas. Probably need to email them to see who has those books. I do not. Maybe worst case scenario someone could phone the Appaloosa museum and ask if they have them, or try interlibrary loan. (Also might be magazine or newsletter articles) I think I DO have the Harris book, though, buried somewhere in the basement. Nag me if I don't get this clarified in the next day or two. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the Spotted Pride book, I'll see what I can do with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. I'm going to try to get the Stanger book ILL, since no-one else seems to have it. Found another one that needs pages - anyone have the Josephy book? Dana boomer (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)