# Talk:Sheila Varian

Nice new article, good work! — Rlevse • Talk •  12:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Per my request for a pre-GA review, anything you think will help improve the article (or convince me that it is doomed to ever go GA) please note here.  Thanks!  Montanabw(talk) 06:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the * in "(*Lotnik x Farza)" for (and a few others)? Not all parentages have it.
The asterisk indicates a horse imported to the United States after having been foaled in another country. AHA has recently gotten away from using it, so I suppose it may be wise to toss those. (Even though it was due to a big political whine from people who felt in meant imported horses were better --which they often are, actually, but nontheless a political whine.)--MTBW
See my edits, the one quote needs a ref immediately after it.
I think I got that one, will double-check.  --MTBW
Curious how horses left Poland in 1961-ship or plane, just wondering.
Not sure, source doesn't say.  I'll see.  My guess is boat.  --MTBW
Leading Arabian Breeders - should that "L" be upper case?
Will verify it's the award name.  Good catch--MTBW
Follow up: Source states "Welcome to USEFs new Leading Breeder Rankings."  So I'll take that L as title case unless someone wants to give me a good debate otherwise.  Definitely not a deal-breaker for me either way.  Montanabw(talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
High School, College, Marriage, Kids?
Dunno where, Dunno where, nope (long time significant other but must be handled delicately), nope (all "kids" have four feet).
See comment on my talk by another person.
 — Rlevse • Talk •  10:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Not much critique from me, I think the article is very well done - excellent pictures too! - Josette (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My concerns are that it's possibly too promotional in tone, possibly that it goes on too much about individual horses.  Thoughts?  Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The article does not seem promotional to me - not at all. I found the information about individual horses interesting and it clearly shows why she has become notable in the Arabian horse world. - Josette (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!  Montanabw(talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Dana
The thing you might get flak for during a GA review is the references:

The formatting is all over the board - some templated, others not, some web sites not including publisher or access date, some with the author/publisher included in the link, others with just the title linked. Although this isn't technically a GA requirement, a lot of reviewers tend to ask for it, per WP:VERIFY on the missing information and per readability on the rest.
I agree.  I think Jack templated a bunch of them for me, but you are dead on correct and will get to work on that.  I could use some help on this, however; my main excuse is that my eyes get really sore trying to focus on the differences between [, {, | and ( .   It's the only thing I don't like about my dear, lovely little laptop! --MTBW
Reliability - Allbreedpedigree.com isn't considered the most reliable source, as it can be edited by anyone. Also, you might have questions over the number of commercial/self-published websites (Varian Arabians and at least one other barn website). From what I saw, you don't seem to be sourcing "promotional" content to these, just basic pedigree/progeny/show information, so I don't think it's a big deal.
I agree with this, but how should I verify pedigrees?  My other options are a)  The AHA datasource, which is a paid subscription database (though the one that is "official") b)  The Varian site (with additional problems with it being their own site) or c)  Surf around for other independent sources.   Carpenter will work for some (the three now-deceased stallions), but not all.  Thoughts?? --MTBW
Is AHA datasource a database that anyone can access, as long as they pay for it, or just for members who pay? If the former, it is basically like JSTOR or another journal database site - just put "subscription required" or something similar in the reference and you'll be fine. The requirement is that it needs to be verifiable, not that the verifying be easy! - DB
You might want to expand the lead a little bit. Technically, it meets requirements per WP:LEAD, but it just feels a little short. I would most likely end up with one bulky paragraph or two paragraphs about the length of the one now if I were writing the article, but this is up to you.
Agreed.  Working on leads is always a :-P task, but you are right; it will need a tuneup before I give it a nom.  --MTBW
Overall it looks like a nice article, and I don't think it's too promotional. GA doesn't require comprehensiveness, just broadness, and so I don't think the missing information on schools, family, etc will be a big deal, although it would be nice if you ever come across the information. Sorry for taking a couple of days to get back to this - I've got it watchlisted and will try to be around to help out during the GA review. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

With this being a BLP, I have to handle personal life carefully, she does a pretty good job of keeping her private life private and I want to respect this (I am not 100% certain on birth year, cannot find her birthday ANYWHERE!).  I could probably clear up a few things with an email or phone call, but that's OR, so no good there. :-P  Montanabw(talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. BLPs must be even more verifiable than most, so if the info isn't in a clearly public source, then it's a no-go. - DB
QUESTION:  A couple of the potentially iffy-looking cites to farm web pages are actually linked to research articles written by a woman named Arlene Magid.  Magid does this work for pay by the people in question, but she happens to be the premier researcher on Arabian bloodlines and show records, so people gladly pay her to do a "background check" if you will, on their horses.  Her works are considered gold standard that you can take to the bank for accuracy (and, occasionally, literally to get the loan to buy the horse!  LOL!)  So, how do I convince a GA reviewer that even though the link is to a farm site, it's the author's name that we are banking on? She's like Gladys Brown Edwards, a respected expert in the field, but little known elsewhere.  Thoughts?  Montanabw(talk) 16:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyplace that states that she is an expert? (A magazine article or book, for example?) Has she written articles for any magazines/journals? If so, you can use these to "prove" she's an expert. If not, you're just going to have to convince the reviewer with your charming personality... :) If these articles on farm sites are written by a reliable expert, then they should be fine. Dana boomer (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The AHA datasource I THINK is open to anyone who pays for it...I'll see if it makes me put in a membership number or not.  I should be able to prove Magid is an authority, what do I need, just ammo if it comes up or must I have something to formally present?
Just have the information available in case it comes up - no need to bring up a non-issue if the reviewer doesn't feel the need to. Dana boomer (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack,  Wasn't sure why you changed the names in the ref name templates--seems like we substituted the simple for the complicated.  Also, not sure the protocol on using "quotation marks" around the ref names...I thought quotes were only needed if there was a space in the name.  Not a complaint, just a question.  Also, is there any reason to bulk out the edit page by putting each part of the cite templates on a different line?  (Makes it easy to see the cites, true there, but harder to place them in the flow of the text...??)  Basically, I'm trying to sort out what's a style preference and what MOS considers best practice... (or, put differently, someone at GA whines, will you fix the ones you did? LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I The name changes were for clarity; just a convention I use. It helps as you get more and more refs on a page. Usually they're "AuthorYear"—"Varian1987", or whatever; I used "website-page". If you don't like them so long, they can be shorter. The quotes are proper form, as is the space before the "/" on invocations. The vertical format of the sites is also a common form and the intent is readability. Life is too short to pick through this sort of thing all squished onto one line. Tip: In Prefs→Editing, set "Editbox dimensions: Rows" to a larger number than the default, which is 25, I think. I'm using 40, which works for me. Find something that fits for you. Get a modern machine if this is not working ;) I'm not sure I'm following you about 'flow'. I've moved some of the refs down to the ref section; you now edit them there. This is a more recently developed feature and is all about de-cluttering the prose of inline cites. My intent is to move them all, so that the body of the article only has the named refs. There's another level this can go; ref groups. See: Prue Halliwell#Episode footnotes (no, I do watch such things). The idea here is that the BS refs to the episodes are mere foot notes and the 'real' (albeit lame) extern is in the proper ref section. A typical inline ref then takes the form:
<ref name="Honeymoon over" group="episodes" />
You're gonna use all-real-refs, right? Prolly don't need groups, then. If anyone at GA criticizes this stuff, I'll defend the idea, and tweak as needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I did some more and two of them are both about "Jullyen El Jamaal", but are from different sites; I used a more cryptic abbreviation of the site names to distinguish the two; this is where conventions help. On the Roberts one, I kept "Roberts", which is fine until you have another source from that person, or another named Roberts. Using "Roberts2" would be lame. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.  The thing of putting more lines in the edit box may help my "flow" problem, which is basically that the cites take up half the edit box...that and unless I want a laptop to pack around that is the size of a small elephant, I deal with a screen  (and hence print) that's a bit smaller than my middle-aged vision can handle, even with new reading glasses :-P  (something's got to give sooner or later there, I guess).  I'll try to think of ways to name that make sense... "authorname2010" is a good convention, for example.  I think I get what you are doing with putting the ref name at the bottom and I like it, actually (eliminates the problem of a dead cite if the original citation gets tossed in the text), but will take some time for me to get used to. I think the answer is yes, all-real refs, not groups.  Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at what you've tweaked and will go with that, or something pretty much like that. You seem to not like '-' or '_', which are preferred over spaces in keywords. I see you moved the Sources section back to below the References and that will likely have to change back as I address the mechanism used for page refs to those sources. Some page may say to use your order, but that prolly need kicking, as it precludes having refs in the sources section. I'll look in more detail later, as I have to go for a bit. fyi, I 'see' what laptop you're on; you need to level-up to the 17" pro and higher resolution. A lot of page usability and layout issues are strongly influenced by platform differences and best practice is to support a reasonable range of them. Doesn't mean that you're not well-served by having a good system. Use Command-'+' as needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ever ride in a cidomo? Jack Merridew 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've finished up the cites to the externs; they're all defined in the ref section and referenced using shortish names in the prose. This clears the prose of the goop. I also reordered them in the ref sec by site; mostly, some are one-off. They can be ordered anyway that's convenient for editing. Any new ones should go in the ref section, following this pattern.
I've also change the book/page refs to use {{sfn}}. This doesn't use names, just consistent invocations: {{sfn|Edwards|1973|p=142}}, for example; if you do this more than once, they can be combined with the 'a', 'b' notation in the reference section. Further, if you click on the link in the ref section, your focus is moved the the book's entry in the Sources section (which didn't have to move up, as I'd been thinking). Teh GA types should like this ;) These are all referencing techniques that should be propagated to anything you work on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK.  My brain just exploded!  =:-O  I like the prose cleared of goop.  I don't know if I can ever replicate it properly, however!  Thanks, I think, as long as you want to keep fixing my citations for several months to come until I figure out what just happened!  Agree that multiple platform compatibility is a good thing!  (You should see what Ealdgyth's talk page looks like on my machine!)  The upside of my laptop is that, like Linus's blanket, I can take it almost anywhere along with several work files stuffed into the bag -- borrowed someone else's unit with a bigger screen once, oh the shoulder pain, the shoulder pain...  =:-O  Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I saw that, once, on South Park ;)
Having the references actually in the reference section rather makes sense. This is a feature of mw:cite.php introduced last September. Huh, what's a mw: link? It is a the whole project about MediaWiki; you're using it to read this. The 'short footnotes' are using the 'Harvard style'—teh doc page will lead to to more information on all that: Wikipedia:Citation templates#Harvard reference and shortened footnote examples, Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples, Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. It's all pretty robust stuff. This is a project that encourages proper citing of sources ;)
I'll keep this page watchlisted and you're free to ping me if any questions arise. You can add refs using older methods; they can be tweaked to live in the ref section or use {{sfn}} later; add one of each, and I'll do the tweak. A simpler example than a dozen at once will be instructive.
Wear the laptop knapsack on both shoulders? Mebbe a cinema display for off-teh-road use? Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jack, comment on the book citations. On the Thwaites book, all I know is what I think I pulled out of the actual hardcopy that's been sitting on my shelf for the last 20 years, but I promise to double-check. Typos are not impossible from me, I admit! For the rest, I can't figure out how a book has an ISBN but didn't print it on the book itself – I've combed through the pages a half-dozen times and not seen one ... are they hiding in some weird spot I'm overlooking? Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On Thwaites, I used an ASIN; that's an Amazon code. 6 years ago, I learned that they had over 400,000,000 distinct things for sale. I'm not supposed to have said that. They must be into the billions, now. Anyway, they don't have an isbn for that specific edition. I expect things were looser, then, and many numbers were asigned after they were published. Reading ISBN, might shed light... The other ones that I found, I mostly got off Amazon; I also used books.google and worldcat. On Edwards1973, I was able to link-up the number to LCCN, but Edwards1978 came up as no good, so check that number, if you've got the book. That number came up as: The Living Cowries — http://www.amazon.com/Living-Cowries-C-M-Burgess/dp/0498066770/ref=sr_1_1 ;) As long as there's one solid ID in each, tools like citation bot will eventually fix them up, as the databases they use improve; that's key to how such tools work. You did pretty well with moving this along, so start in on moar articles doing the same. See Greta Garbo, which I'm doing a lot of this on. If you'd like to work on another horse article, try [[Sarah Jessica Parker] ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll double check the books. They're all old... Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, double- and triple-checked the actual books, and here's what I have, right off the hardcopy (can provide photos if needed, grin)
Carpenter is sole author. "edited by" Close, so not a co-author. Definitely. Will need to redo those.
GBE 1978 (A Photographic History of the Polish Arabian) has no ISBN to be found, my copy has a letter from the publisher folded in with it basically saying "here's the first edition, hot off the press" with some apologies for the lateness of the release. On the appropriate page it says "Library of Congress catalogue card number 78-058324" but if you have an ISBN, and that link clearly shows one, I guess what the heck, I guess that's superior?! Possible that this first run was missing something. Don't know
Thwaites, I double- and triple- checked, and it says ISBN 0-498-06677-0 and Library of Congress catalogue card number 68-10965. The LC I agree checks out. Dunno the problem with the ISBN... I see Amazon.com's version is a 1970 edition and the book itself is of different dimensions than mine.
Montanabw(talk) 03:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, at lccn.loc.gov, the FAQ did say something interesting and probably relevant here: "LCCNs are also assigned before publication to items which the Library may subsequently decide not to add to its collections — including items cataloged by the National Library of Medicine or the National Agricultural Library, many large-print books, serials cataloged through the cooperative CONSER program, and items which received preassigned control numbers (PCNs). While LCCN Permalink may not find a bibliographic record in the LC Online Catalog, these LCCN may be represented in other library databases." So for the Polish Arabian book, it is likely; it was a pretty specialized publication primarily of interest to Arabian breeders, a pretty narrow group, especially in 1968.(and a rare book now, priced accordingly, it seems). Montanabw(talk) 04:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I changed Carpenter back; Close just the editor. Google and World Cat are showing Close as coauthor, but I can see them being a tad confused. Amazon has it right and going with what your book says is fine for me.
Your edition of GBE 1978 prolly just didn't print an ISBN; sloppy, or it had not been assigned yet. It works and links to good stuff, so it should stay. The LCCN may just be a bad database, that will heal. I filled out their feedback for with links and told them about it, that google and amazon had it. I've run citation bot on it and id didn't complain. Left for now; tbd.
for Thwaites, I get:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000COCU8
Hardcover: 183 pages
Publisher: A.S. Barnes And Company (January 1, 1968)
ASIN: B0000COCU8
no dimensions
You seem to be seeing:
http://www.amazon.com/Horses-West-jeanne-thwaites/dp/B000RHZCBS/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
Hardcover
Publisher: A. S. Barnes (January 1, 1970)
ASIN: B000RHZCBS
Product Dimensions: 11.2 x 8.5 x 0.8 inches
Poke at the formats box to see the others they have. For the LCCN, I've clicked the generated link your comment presents, and followed the stuff there:
Special:BookSources/0498066770, which offers:
http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=0498066770 not found
http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A0498066770 wrong book
http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=0498066770 wrong book
Can't have that ;)
The books.google and ASIN are good enough, for now. If you can find something else, and there are a few other book id schemes, great. I'll look a bit more, too. But we can't link to things that are outright wrong.
The long-form fails the same way; ISBN 978-0-498-06677-1
Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't argue that the ISBN for Thwaites seems to now go to another book.  I suppose a typo in the run was certainly possible.  My edition does also have 183 pages, so my concerns that page numbers wouldn't match up seem to be allieviated, and I actually checked the dimensions, and they are similar, after all.  What IS interesting is that the LC number is repeated on the back dust cover, and just above it is "6677", so that apparently must be part of the ISBN (?) or at least the publisher thought it was at the time...wonder if there is any way to search on a partial...  I'm OK with what you have if you're OK with what you have and GA will be happy with what WE have... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For possible future use: 

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/cowboy.htm  Interview with (cousin) Jack Varian of V6 ranch about conservation easements (Jack is the son of Sigrud Varian)
http://www.kcoy.com/Global/story.asp?S=11754039 KCOY story
http://blog.v6ranch.com/ Jack Varian's blog -- Extended family photo there that looks like it includes Sheila (Links to content that may also be useful info for Guest ranch article)
Just in case there is expansion of article on Sheila's extended family and other issues.  Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sheila Varian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usef.org/content/pointsAwards/n
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usef.org/content/pointsAwards/leadingBreederPoints.php?year=2004&viewCat=Arabian
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usef.org/content/pointsAwards/leadingBreederPoints.php?year=2005&viewCat=Arabian
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, the reason you keep getting reverted is because:  1)  You keep breaking properly formatted paragraphs into multiple choppy little 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs, which is poor writing form.  2)  The sources you are adding are not formatted properly. This is a GA-class article and all the refs need to be properly formatted using the citation templates.  Learn to do this.  3)  We don't use citations in the lead, as the lead summarizes sourced content found elsewhere in the article (see WP:LEAD). Yes, Varian died of ovarian cancer. The source is fine, the problem is that a) you don't put it in the lead, you only put it in the body text, and b)  You have to format it properly, which you aren't. So when you have it properly done, you won't get reverted.  If you need help with this, ask me and I can give you advice on how to do it properly.  Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sheila Varian. 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/20060325100806/http://www.varianarabians.com/history/Ronteza.asp to http://www.varianarabians.com/history/ronteza.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725013430/http://www.arabianhorses.org/activities/trailride/docs/AboutSheilaVarian.pdf to http://www.arabianhorses.org/activities/trailride/docs/AboutSheilaVarian.pdf
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) 19:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sheila Varian. 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/20100126055401/http://www.varianarabians.com/breeding/business_sense.asp to http://www.varianarabians.com/breeding/business_sense.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228185205/http://www.horsemansawards.com/apaha/results2009.html to http://www.horsemansawards.com/apaha/results2009.html
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) 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bay-Abi (horse) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)