Talk:Azteca horse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Nice prose, easy to understand even for people like myself who don't know loads about horses.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead section summarises the article contents nicely.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
~~Reference 5 to the IMH seems to point to the wrong page.~~

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Can't think of anything that's missing, all the main points are covered.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
All from Commons and correctly licensed.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Nice pictures that add to the article and simple but useful captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'll pass this once that stray reference is fixed. Cheers, Big Dom 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link. IMH changes their website around at least once a year, and they never leave redirects - it's extremely annoying! :( Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I'll pass it now. Well done, Big Dom 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]