Horse articles 
I agree that the use of "Footnotes", (or simply Notes) "Citations" and "References" is perfectly acceptable. However, there is no consistency in the way these terms are used and on quite a few of the FA articles the term "Footnotes" is used in place of "Citations" (or References) and on at least two articles the notes were labelled "Notes" and the citations were labelled "Footnotes". There appears to be some misunderstanding as to when and where the terms "Notes" and/or "Footnotes" ought to be used. If "Citations" is the preferred heading for inline references, then you need to take this up with others who write about horses. My point here is specifically to eliminate the wrong usage of the term "Footnotes" for sections that do not contain anything that even vaguely resembles a footnote. 

Since consistency appeared to be an issue, I changed a number of articles, simply to make them consistent. They have been changed back, and unless someone has subsequently corrected them, are no longer consistent.