Talk:American Cream Draft/GA1

GA Review

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

I've had an initial read through, and it comes across as being a good article. I'll just give it a second go over now for grammar etc.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Characteristics: "They have a wide chest, sloping shoulders, and a short, strong back, deep throughout the heart girth, with well-sprung ribs, short-coupled with well-muscled hindquarters, good strong legs in proportion to body set wide apart with strong, sure feet and free and easy movement." The two "with"s in the middle of that sentence seem a bit repetitive. Possible solution would be to end the sentence at girth, then start a new sentence along the lines of "Their well-spring ribs are short coupled with well-muscled..."

• Breed History: "The American Cream breed descends from a foundation mare named Old Granny..." Because of the use of the breed name to start the previous sentence in a similar manner, "American Cream" can probably be removed from this one, so it becomes "The breed descends from a foundation mare named Old Granny..."

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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, with only those couple of points to address. Placing it on hold so that they can be sorted out. Miyagawa (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of both issues above; please let me know if further work is needed. Thanks for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to pass this as a Good Article - well done. :) Miyagawa (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)