Talk:Shire horse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will be adding queries below shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a couple of copy edits, but these are my initial thoughts:

• Citations need to be placed following a punctuation mark. The first occurrence of cite #1 appears midway through a sentence. Can't see any other instances, but it might be worthwhile to double check.

On behalf of Dana (who did most of the work here, I just copyedit and annoy people! LOL!) I'll check these, but in some cases, the need legitimately arises because the cite only covers a portion of the sentence. I fixed the one you specifically noted with the addition of a comma, I didn't see any others, but if they exist, just holler! Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC) (MT BW)

Citations do not need to always come after punctuation. If punctuation is present, then they should come consistently either before or after, but if no punctuation is present (in the example of a reference in the middle of a sentence) then punctuation does not need to be added because of the citation. In many cases, references only cover portions of a statement, and so references can occasionally occur in the middle of a sentence with no adjoining punctuation. Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do any of the cited books have online copies such as on Google Books? If so, adding the urls to the citation templates would be helpful.

• I'm sure that some of the books do have online copies, but I have no interest in adding them. I feel that they add unneeded bulk to the article, as due to differing international copyright laws many people can't access them anyway, and only use them when I have actually used the Google Book version as the reference. Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• For the cited books, are there access dates, as these should also be added to the cite templates?

• Books do not need access dates. Just because the cite template has a field doesn't mean it needs to be (or should be) filled in. Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Images need ALT text.

Done. --MT BW

I see that Montana has already done this, and it is something I would have added at some point, but just as a note, alt text is not required for GA-class. For your future knowledge, if an editor refuses to add alt text (I've never seen this happen, but who knows), it is not grounds for failing or even holding an article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any information regarding Shire Horses being used to pull canal barges in the UK? Just noticed there's an article regarding this at Horse-drawn boat, but it might be worthwhile a mention in the uses section.

I'll let Dana address this based on her access to sources, but I would have a possible concern with WP:UNDUE absent statistics on what breeds and in what numbers do this, etc.... Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if there aren't any reliable sources then obviously the article shouldn't suffer for it.Miyagawa (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any information on this in the sources I have so far had access to. I plan to at some point in the future do a deeper dig for sources to make sure the article is comprehensive before a FAC run, and if there has been a significant history of Shires in this work then it will be added to the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Prose is generally good, don't have any issues with it. Let me know on my talk page when you've addressed these issues and I'll come have a look. Good work! Miyagawa (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies above. Will drop a note on Miyagawa's talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Miyagawa, I want to add a sincere thank you for the review! I hope my replies above don't come off as too snarky or rude - I don't intend them to be but have had a long day and so may not be thinking as clearly as usual. Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a good article, would be nice to see this one make it's way up to FA. Miyagawa (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)