# Talk:Pryor Mountain mustang

Wow! Very nice! Thinking about GA? I'll try to find a chance to run through it, but am swamped (took a day off to go visit a friend, and wound up about a week behind in everything else - hate it when that happens). Should have time this weekend... Dana boomer (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim1965 should get ALL the credit, as I just spun off his work at Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range, which is INCREDIBLY extensive.  We should gang up on him and ask him to put that one up!  He had so much stuff in there that I also spun some of it into the long-needed Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.

Lynghaug sometimes blindly copies stuff given her, and I chopped the stuff that flunked my smell test.  The bit about most Pryors being Dun on 106 contradicts what is on 104, that the wild ones became predominantly bay and black because the flashy colored-ones got adopted out. And it is genetically impossible to say "the majority are dun ... AND include... roan."  So we have possible discrepancy between the wild herd and the horses recorded by the little (very small) registry -- I know that a lot of Pryors got adopted without being "registered" by this little group.  These horses have come to Sponenberg's attention though, and if we can verify that the articles posted here and here are faithful verbatim copies of his, that would be good to use.  The bit about possibly being gaited I'd want to see Sponenberg say directly, instead of the vague "they have paso gaits" that is in Lynghaug, (some of them probably are) and she also repeats the nonsense about five lumbar vertebrae being a breed trait (this is a thing with the Arabian people too...) they are short-backed and some have 5 lumbar vertebrae, but many have six (I think one of the other sources verifies this.)  FYI, I also favor inking to the google book where there is one.   MOS definitely allows it for page cites to link to a URL, is not as definitive for the whole book, but where everything cited is in the book online version, I think we can get away with it for at least GAN.  Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we could re-add the bit about gaitedness with the caveat "some exhibit ambling gaits" or such. It's mentioned by one of the other mustang registries here, and in an article by the Cloud Foundation head here. I didn't add the Lynghaug info, but I just added in the url. Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree.  Cloud foundation article is more RS for the fact that some are gaited (photos, etc.) than is the American Mustang Society page, which is pretty amateurish. ("Send us $25 and we'll send you a purdy certificate") That said, the stuff on the Crow selecting for gaitedness sounds a bit bogus; the original Spanish horses of Palfrey type WERE gaited (the Paso types being the best example), but I'd want better sources than either of these for the "why" part.  We can also emphasize surefootedness, which is clearly established inmultiple sources.  Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I've readded the information with a qualifier, and removed Cohen as a source for the sentence, as she doesn't say anything other than "high stepping knee action", which could mean anything. I can't find anything on the Crows selecting for gaitedness in the article? Or was that in one of the sources? I'm currently reading through the sections on the Pryors in America's Last Wild Horses - the author has a fairly extensive discussion of the major late-60's, early 70's dustup regarding the herd, which isn't discussed at all here. That fight was a pretty major early battle around the feds' control of the horses, and needs to have at least a brief discussion here. I want to get that info in before nominating for GA, as it's a major gap in their history that IMO would make the article fail on broadness. If the BLM had gotten their way at that point, the herd would have been wiped out and the range repopulated by mountain goats and mule deer. I'm almost done reading the section, so hopefully should have the info in by the end of the weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm cool with what you have.  People into gaited horses (IMHO, those too lazy to learn to post the trot) can get practically into "walks on water" territory and find EVERYTHING is potentially gaited.  So I always like to see really solid claims for such things.  I'd be good with popping in some on the politics, as that is huge.  I have a BLM report from my hero, Charles O. Williamson, discussing seeing the Spanish horse type back in the 1930s.  If I find it, I'll pop it in.  Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added in the Ryden info. May have gone a bit overboard, but I was trying to condense ~25 pages of info, so I think two paragraphs is pretty good :) She gives two full chapters of the book to the fight over the Pryors, so it seems likely a pretty important thing to document here. And now we have a description of how we got from 1900 to 1980. Also added in a couple new images - can't figure out how to stagger them and still get them to all "look" into the page, but whatever - and tightened up the sourcing a bit more. Have you had any luck finding the 1930s paper you mentioned above? If not, I think the main thing to do at this point is another expansion of the lead (it either needs two quite hefty paragraphs or three decent ones, given its current size). Unless there's anything else you can think of? Dana boomer (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at things. The BLM paper I have a hardcopy printout with insufficient bibliographic info, will see if I can locate it online, which IS where I found it.  Montanabw(talk) 08:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the excerpt from Williamson I am trying to source: one version, slightly different version. I believe it can be found in Brownell, J. L. 1999. Horse distribution in the Pryor Mountains Region preceding the creation of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. Billings, MT.  Except I can only find that as a ref, can't find text online.  (so far) Montanabw(talk) 08:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Dana boomer: I added a bit ore from the BLM study to the history section and added the Williamson quote into the genetics section (along with another tidbit from the BLM),  I think if you want to give it a once-over, I will as well (not tonight, though am bleary-eyed now) and then up for GAN.  Montanabw(talk) 10:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! I think just the lead expansion to-do and then GAN. I should have time to take a whack at the lead later today, if you don't get to it before me. One further thing, though, I think we have a minor mix-up with two of the sources. One of the sources you put in last night was to a book called "Among Wild Horses", listed as being authored by Pomeranz and Ryder. Down in the Sources section, we have two books called "Among Wild Horses", one by Pomeranz and one by Massingham - both of which have in-line short refs. Now, I think these are all the same book. According to the [http://www.amazon.com/Among-Wild-Horses-Portrait-Mountain/dp/158017633X Amazon page], it was written by Pomeranz with a forward by Ryder. But according to the Google preview, for a book with the same cover, it was written by Massingham with photography by Pomeranz. Any thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Same book, I think.  And I have a hardcopy of it floating around my house somewhere (so many books, so little time...)  Check the ASIN (for some reason, no ISBN??) Reconcile to google books version as that's what I was citing.  Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pryor Mountain Mustang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Dana boomer (talk)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done (PD)

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are: 

The lead does not provide an accessible overview and does not give relative emphasis.
The lead should be expanded.
"That same year, a private group calling itself the Pryor Mountains Mustang Breeders Association was formed to preserve the gene pool of the herd and establish a registry for Pryor Mountains horses in private hands." (calling itself here has condescending connotations, the section Registry in the source (Lynghaug, p. 105.) says "The Pryor Mountain Mustang Breeders Association (PMMBA) was founded in 1992 to preserve ..." which is a very neutral position, I’d recommend a reparaphrasing to match the position of the source, also it was founded in 1992 not 1994 as is mentioned in the article "That same year") 
FIXED --Montanabw
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best,  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seabuckthorn, I'm one of the people who helped edit this article, along with Dana.  However, I am a bit concerned with your interpretation of WP:LEAD; while the lead may be improved upon, we are actively discouraged from going for more then 3 to 4 paragraphs, we need to be concise. I did think your comment that a bit on tourism in the lede could be added - that was a good idea and I threw in one sentence about it.  I'll also defer to Dana's view, but at present I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the characteristics and genetics summaries, we mention both, though scattered a bit throughout the lede, and I do not really see what's missing -- adding much more would get into into excess detail.  However, perhaps I am too close to the content to see it with fresh eyes, so do you have specific suggestions? Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you very much for your polite explanation.  Our goal is to improve the article and not to incorporate every suggestion given in the review. I'm good in committing mistakes so don't worry.  I agree with you that the lead should not be expanded, I misjudged it. Apologies. I'm striking it from the review. But I also feel that the lead gives too much due weight to the history, which I feel may be compressed to make way for the expansion of other points. Lets take Dana's view on this as final. To stress again, the article should be our top most priority and not the review.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Seabuckthorn! Montanabw is correct that per WP:LEAD, the lead for an article of this size should be about three paragraphs. However, you are correct that the weighting was a little off. Between Montanabw and I, I think we have managed to get the weighting to a more appropriate level - adding a sentence on the tourism section, trimming the early history a bit and adding more from the management and genetics sections. It's still about the same length (expanded only slightly), but the information contained has changed quite a bit. Would you like to take another look and see what you think of the new version? Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me if it looks good to everyone else, made a minor tweak to note the Pryor herd is the only feral herd -- plenty of people raising Mustangs in Montana. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 00:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!  The article looks perfect now. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)