My old grade mare

The long back is the most obvious thing. Everything else I feel like is discipline dependent and would be nitpicking.

Yes there is not a whole lot to say about her. Great backend - powerful- though in one shot it looks as if her coupling may be weak, but not in the rest of the shots. It's not quite rough, but almost. Her front cannons could be a little shorter maybe? Nice mare. Nice open angled shoulder, very useful.

Look like she stands camped under herself in the front?

I think she looks very nice and there are really only two areas I see that could give her issues.

Her head is mostly feminine, though unrefined and a bit heavy around the muzzle. She has large eyes and combined with her ears, they give her a very kind expression. I like her trim throatlatch because it will allow her to flex at the poll and not hinder movement or breathing. Her neck is long and smooth with an underline shorter than the topline. I like how it ties into the chest, though I may prefer for it to tie in a touch higher as a personal preference. She has a slight appearance of pigeon chest, though it is very slight. It may be from the photo angle. I really like the slope of her shoulder and her withers, which will help hold a saddle in place. I do think her withers could be set a little further back to elongate her shoulder angle, but it is sufficient.
Her back is long and her barrel is deep. In a few photos she appears a little 'tube-shaped' and I cannot tell if it is just camera angle or a trick of her conformation. Usually tube-horses have straight shoulders, long backs/loins and a shallow depth of girth which gives them the tube-look where the topline and underline appear to be almost the same lengths. Her underline is longer than her topline, but not with as much difference as I like to see. I think she has a nice rear motor, though there is something about her croup and tail set, and I'm not sure what it is...it just looks 'off' to me. [i]*I know that isn't scientific, but I haven't done a critique in ages and I'm out of practice.[/i] I like her triangle. This is a term I devised where the three points (point of hip, point of buttock and stifle) make a triangle. If all three are equal, the horse is able to carry the maximum amount of muscle for drive. This horse appears to have a slightly shorter side between the buttock/stifle, which is failry common. Horses with triangle sides shorter on either of the other two sides tend to have a 'weaker' motor because they just cannot carry the maximum amount of muscle or have the conformation angles to allow them the greatest impulsion from their frame.
I like her legs. They appear to have plenty of bone and are clean and sturdy looking with feet appropriate to her body size. Nice open elbow for a sweeping stride, long forearm and short cannons. Her pasterns are on the long side, and this could enhance (shock absorption) or detract (overburdened upon landing a jump) though she appears to have no problems in these photos and I suspect her pasterns help (shock absorption) more than they hinder her. Her back legs, her gaskin appears a little light to me, especially in light of the amount of motor she has sitting on top of them and this could limit her use of her motor. Her hocks are where I see the largest conformation fault, they are fairly straight, giving her a post-legged appearance. This isn't terrible, and some people actually look for this in certain disciplines.

Whenever I give a critique, I always like to end it with this:
[i]What is inside your horse?[/i]
Many horses are able to achieve greatness over horses with much better breeding and/or conformation. Conformation helps a horse do its' job, but without the will, drive and heart to give to their rider and their efforts, the best conformation will not help an unwilling horse do anything.
So, what's inside *your* horse?

That's art! Nice job Heidi! Where do you learn to organize it? NO ONE I know in my conformation group does it like this. You and Maigray both do it in such a nice, organized manner that covers a lot.....

In one of my horse courses in college, we were taught to begin ([i]left side, always left side, so now I have difficulty organizing my thoughts with a R-oriented photo[/i]) at the head and work our way back/down.

*[i]however, since legs are so important and pretty heads not-so-much, it seems it would make better sense to evaluate all prospects from the ground and then up.[/i]

My way of listing the critique, using both the descriptions of what will work and not work within the conformation, was developed by enjoying the Horse & Rider "[u]Conformation Clinic[/u]" section of their magazine.
In that particular section, a popular and/or well-known person from the horse industry (competitor, judge, trainer, breeder) is interviewed about what they look for in their personal profession/discipline. Photos of three horses of similar gender/age/discipline are shown and listed as A, B, C and by using the criteria the 'guest judge' uses for evaluation, YOU try to place those three horses.
Turn the page to check how you placed them with the 'guest judge', who also gives their reasons why each horse was placed as they were. I usually am able to get it right, once in a while I will mis-place two, but I've never gotten all three placed incorrectly.

[quote="Heidi"] ([i]left side, always left side, so now I have difficulty organizing my thoughts with a R-oriented photo[/i])[/quote]

That is how I was taught to read all forms of imaging, the same orientation every time. You get to the point that you can scan through quickly and only see the abnormal things because you have such good memory of normal.