Talk:Pryor Mountain mustang/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
None
|
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)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Icelandic horse, Marwari horse, Andalusian horse, Haflinger (horse), Boulonnais horse, Poitevin horse & one GA Kiger Mustang
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
Cross-checked with other FAs: Icelandic horse, Marwari horse, Andalusian horse, Haflinger (horse), Boulonnais horse, Poitevin horse & one GA Kiger Mustang
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (PD)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)