# Talk:Ann T. Bowling

@Montanabw: It is difficult to assess this page for GA since there is no substantial page on horse genetics at Wikipedia. The Horse article has a short section in it, and there is a Horse genome article which touches on this topic, though these fall short of a full article. Dr Bowling's place of importance to horse genetics would seems to need a horse genetics page in order to better understand her place and contributions to her field. Pedigree verification, molecular horse disease study, comparative horse genetics are all related but without a central article to join them together. For the Dr Bowling article it seems that it would also need a section dealing with her relevance to contemporary on-going research and future research directions currently on the academic agenda for the studies which she initiated and guided in her lifetime. Without an article on horse genetics available at Wikipedia, it does not appear that it would be easy to start that discussion on the Dr Bowling page though it would be nice to see such a discussion. The article itself has been properly written and the references are well formated otherwise. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that a biography is dependent on other wikipedia articles being up to snuff, but take a look at equine coat color genetics, where Bowling figures prominently. Keilana may be of some assistance in answering this question also, as she does a number of articles on women scientists.  Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw and Fountains-of-Paris: *swoops down from the sky* Hi! There's a ton of bios on women scientists where the articles on their discoveries are not well fleshed out. As a newly minted Degree-Holding Scientist (TM) this is a right shame, but not anything that should keep an article from GA status, imo. Keilana (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw and Keilana: Response and congrats to Keilana for recent graduation; are you staying at the same school for your next degree or moving on? Regarding the current nomination, by all means go forward. My comment was that it might be nice to see a short section on her Legacy to the science of horses in molecular biology, since usually genetics seems to concentrate research on drosophila, primates, and humans. If an article on horse genetics is not on the immediate horizon, then maybe a short section on current research trends related to her original investigations (Legacy) might work well. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea of a "Legacy" section, though perhaps after we get done with GAN, as the research is going to be rather daunting (like covering everything that's happened in equine genetics since her untimely death in 2000...she's sort of the godmother of it all, really.)  @Keilana and Fountains-of-Paris:.  Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ann T. Bowling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 22:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


### First reading
In general it looks pretty good, but I have the following more detailed comments, which it would be helpful to address before I get to the actual assessment against the good article criteria:

Lead section

Early life and career

Animal parentage identification

Genetic disease and equine coat color research
References 15-23, 25-26, 28: Again, these are all primary, and much of this section has no secondary sources.
Like those in the previous section, they go to verify that she did the work, not an analysis of the work.  Also, most of those are not primary sources (15 is, 16-18 are not, 19 is, 20 is not. 21-23 are.
References from her department, or references that source article statements about follow-up research by referring to the original publication of that follow-up research, are still prlmary.
What is the problem?  We are stating what she did. WP:PRIMARY states, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation [my emphasis] of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"  I think this is what I have done.  I use the primary sources for factual material -- she did A or B or C.  If you see synthesis without a source, pinpoint it and I'll see what I can do.  Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, she died 16 years ago, if "her department" is still mentioning her, that probably is no longer "primary." Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the above ↑ ↑ resolved?

"The tests on this herd established the condition had a recessive mode of genetic inheritance" implies that it was her research that established this, but the source from the next footnote doesn't mention her.
Right.  Perhaps you can help me break my brain logjam here.  Bowling established the herd in 1985,  and it was experimental breeding of animal in the herd that provided strong evidence for the hypothesis that CA was a recessive, but I think there were only about 40 horses in the herd, and thus not enough to establish statistical validity.  Her known credit is for starting the herd.  I have general interest sources like this one that credit her for uncovering the recessive mode of inheritance, but according to that source and this one she died before she published the results of the studies.  She died in 2000, the first DNA marker test came out in 2008 and the actual causative mutation was identified in 2010.   The major paper on CA genetics came out in 2011. That was the first time a peer-reviewed publication conclusively stated it was recessive; prior to then, it was "proposed" or "theorized."  My guess is that VGL had the research but didn't publish until they had stronger statistical evidence. Montanabw(talk) 01:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I explained, so how is the above ↑ ↑ to be resolved?

"She was part of a research team that studied lethal white syndrome (LWS), a fatal condition in newborn foals" is sourced to a primary paper that does not use the phrase "lethal white syndrome". The closest it comes is a sentence near the end that says that what it studies should not be confused with "the syndrome associated with the lethal dominant white gene". Also, references 31 and 33 have different titles and their appearances in different sentences makes them appear to be different pieces of research, but they have the same publication data. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Added a source that explains that Congenital Intestinal Aganglionosis is "lethal white foal syndrome.'  Hope that's close enough.  (and yes, it's not the same as Dominant white, which is lethal for a totally different set of reasons).  Fixed the duplicate Vonderfecht source.  Better?  Montanabw(talk) 01:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
the above ↑ ↑ was fixed

"Her work ... led to the 1997 discovery": neither the primary source for her own work, nor the secondary source about the discovery, source this claim of a connection from one to the other. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Rephrased, "In 1997 Bowling was one of three researchers to identify the gene responsible for LWS..."  Better?  Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The above ↑ ↑ was fixed.

Reference 24: automatically closes its browser window as soon as I open it, making it very difficult to view. Doesn't appear to mention Bowling.
Here's a wayback link (I'll fix that url too!) [8], no, it doesn't mention Bowling, as it sources the bit that LWS is linked to frame overo and found in Paint horses.
"with genetic disease research with": awkward word repetition.
Rephrased "dovetailed with genetic disease research when she studied..."  Better??
"Lethal White Syndrome": this capitalization is not what is used in the linked article and seems to be contrary to MOS:CAPS.
Oops, fixed.
"She was part of a research team that studied Lethal White Syndrome (LWS),[22] and as early as 1983 identified the fatal condition in newborn foals as linked to a coat color spotting pattern[23] later identified as frame overo, found in the American Paint Horse and related breeds.": another overlong sentence.
Rephrased.  Tricky to keep one source's info separate from another.  Better now?
"at one time, some horse breeders thought might be linked to Lethal White Syndrome": not really supported by the source, which calls it a common misconception, but doesn't tie it to the time of Bowling's research nor to a specific group of people who thought this.
Hmmm.  How to rephrase? This was a big deal in its time.  I actually took an equine science class about 1987 or so where they taught flat out that the cremello was "maybe lethal white" -- it was an extremely widespread belief -- the AQHA refused to register blue-eyed creams,[9] The reason the lethal white researchers looked at cremello at all was because of the prevalence of this belief.  But we are talking about stuff published in the pre-Google age... a lot of it in horse magazines and agricultural news materials that simply are no longer easily available. This also mentions that cremello is not lethal white -- it's one of those things that's such common knowledge in the horse world, so no one explains it... I'll make some changes, tell me what you think.
It's a matter of nuance, but our article as written gives the impression that the cream-LWS link was at one time the standard belief in this area, held by experts, and that Bowling debunked it. Which may for all I know be true, but instead the source gives an impression of timelessness, that the cream-LWS link is an ongoing misconception, held by the uneducated. Also it's another run-on sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the run on.  As for the rest, It was.  She (and the other researchers) did. And yes, the uneducated person is still a problem:  They still have to explain it to people: see here, search "lethal white'.  I added one more source, all it says is to point out that two cremellos don't produce a lethal white, but it probably helps.  Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The new source is a worthwhile addition but it still doesn't source the "At one time" part of the sentence, which implies a temporal dynamics to the misconception that neither source mentions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, my brain has fried on that one.  How do you suggest I proceed?  Is this a minor copyedit problem or a sourcing problem?  Can you propose a rephrase that works?  (or you can tweak it yourself if you'd like...)  Montanabw(talk) 02:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The above ↑ ↑ apparently requires a breaking of a logjam

Horse genome project

Horse breeding

Comment on discussion:

Thank you for your edits and comments, David Eppstein. As far as I can tell, all your concerns are now addressed?  Is anything else needed to pass this as a GA?  Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. As I already explained on my talk,

Re the misconception about cream coloring vs LWS: you need to either rewrite this to avoid implying a temporal change (that this misconception was once widely held but isn't any more) or you need to find sources that cover such a change.
For now, will take the former.  Reworded to "...a dilution gene with no deleterious effects, though a misconception exists that cream colors might be linked to lethal white syndrome."  I think that fits the existing sources. And people apparently still believe it, else there would be no need to keep mentioning it.  Better? Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Re "The tests on this herd established the condition had a recessive mode of genetic inheritance": you need to either rewrite this to avoid implying that this was her research (in which case why are we even mentioning it) or find sources that state that it was Bowling that established this
I added a source from a general interest publication and rewrote the the section, per this diff: [17]  Will this work? Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
These were problems already pointed out in my initial review that have still not been addressed.
—David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On it.  I was unclear about the precise concerns and the direction to go in fixing them, but I see what you are asking now.  I probably was over-thinking the issue or we just got wires crossed and I was not quite clear about what you were needing.  Sorry for the delay, was off the grid for a few days.  Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)  David Eppstein:  All done now pending your review.  Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
All issues addressed, passing.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

—David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
HOORAY!!!! Thank you!  Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ann T. Bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160625013721/http://www.cvsangelcare.com/staff/Lydia-Bowling-DVM/ to http://www.cvsangelcare.com/staff/Lydia-Bowling-DVM/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602130940/http://www.thearabianhorsefoundation.org/NewsArticles/11_CA_Research_Project_Summary.pdf to http://www.thearabianhorsefoundation.org/NewsArticles/11_CA_Research_Project_Summary.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312112334/http://cnasha.org/ann-bowling-memorial/ to http://cnasha.org/ann-bowling-memorial/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)