"not interested can skip right over it to the next section.  Points of high interest belong in the lead of the article, and in the lead paragraph of each section.  The structure of the article, on the other hand, should accommodate readers who read the article from start to finish;  so it should follow some kind of internal logic.    

 ::Re Ealdgyth's ""I'm fine ..."" above (diff), my opinion:  the article is loaded with details imported from other articles.  Don't force the reader to wade through those details, let the reader follow a link if they are interested.    

 :::Um, it's more like other articles were spun off from this one with remnants and ""main"" links left behind.  That's the history of the article.  I've been following it for however long I've been on wikipedia.  At least a dozen new articles were spun off from this one in that time, and even more before that, I'm sure.    

 :::: Again, I do not favor cutting out much of the information in the article, as generally this is all information that people who want to know about horses will want to know. I cannot tell you the number of times I get asked about the age horses live to (and this includes at FAC), or other information about their care and feeding. This is not a warbler species article, it is an article about a species who is intertwined with human culture.  -   
 :::::Dittos.  Compare other companion animal articles such as cat and dog.  Both have extensive sections related to human interaction, though each is arranged very differently.    

 :::::Putting all these tangential details in this article amounts to cruft, and it is very tedious to read.  But hey, if you must insist on keeping all that stuff, I will start adding all my many favorite factoids about horses.  No, seriously, I dislike reading in this talk page some contributors are told sorry their pet factoid can't go in the article because it is full ... of other contributors' factoids.  It sounds like Ealdgyth and Montanabw are trying to write Frequently asked questions about horses, except that article does not belong in an encyclopedia, does it?    

 :::::: You know what? This article is the first place a lot of folks WILL end up with questions about horses, since it's going to show up high in Google searches. I thought the idea of the articles was that we were writing for the readers, to give them information that they were looking for.  -    

 ::::::As I've said during the present GA review, I'd like to see a few changes to the structure, but so far as the charge of cruft is concerned I think the article has it just about right. There's a fine line, particularly with domesticated animals it seems, between providing relevant and interesting information and writing a how-to manual. Compare this Horse article with Ferret, for instance, which I've struggled with for what seems like my entire time on wikipedia, and it's hardly any better now than it was two years ago.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

  

  
 == Music == 

 The following was submitted by  

 Some ignorant person tagged it as ""vandalism"". I am sure there have been studies. Anyone feel like creating a section on this topic? —   | [[special:contributions/RHaworth|c