Talk:Kathiawari horse/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria:

1. Well-written:


(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:


(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
As a matter of fact, it's rarely been edited at all, over the past couple of months! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
No problem's here. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments

• "At some points in the breed's history, breeders focused on the preservation of these curving ears, to the detriment of some other, more important, physical characteristics." I just feel this sentence should be cited. I have no doubt it is true, but this seems the sort of information which could be pinned as original research if not directly followed by a source. Other than that, the article looks fine to me. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• The ref for this sentence was placed a couple of sentences later. However, I agree that this is something that would be ripe for a fact tag, so I have duplicated the reference at the end of this particular sentence. Please let me know if there are any other issues that you see, and thank you very much for undertaking this review! Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I think this article checks clear against everything! We've another GA in our midst! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)