Talk:Colorado Ranger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll review this and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The subject jumps to plural in the lead's second sentence. Be better to keep as singular somehow.~~

Fixed. - DB

Surely we can get an image of one - I find it a bit disconcerting that the only image is actually of another breed....

I've looked, and haven't been able to find one. I'm hoping at some point to get to one of the big shows where I can take pictures of a bunch of these rare breeds, but the opportunity hasn't come up yet... :( - DB

As it reads now, the two sections talking of ancestry are confusing as one talks about Max and Patches, and the other describes horses further back. I'd add the adverb "directly" to the first where Max and Patches are mentioned - think about words that clarify the timescale.

I think I've clarified this a bit. See what you think. - DB

I know it's an esoteric horse breed, but some other references would be good - e.g. ~~where in North Africa was Spotte from and why was he chosen?~~ Why was Lusitano blood introduced and why was it stopped? ~~Are these horses only in the US (and if so, only in the midwest?)?~~ Are there any elsewhere?

Added some on Spotte and location. I haven't been able to find any other details on the Lusitano crosses, just that there were some in the 80's. - DB

I've tried to address everything, and have left replies above. Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I am happy to leave this open for a bit as I have an idea...there are photos on the net, so if you see some promising ones we could email the owners. I am an extrovert so am happy be the one contacting if you feel uncomfortable with this. Also, I do think it is worth contacting the [Colorado Ranger Horse Assocation http://www.coloradoranger.com/] and asking them about further information - they may be able to point us to more sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to see this segment of a book on google books? It has a bit more info such as colloquial name (Rangerbred) discussed.

FYI, I couldn't at first, then on a reload, I could. Don't know whazzup wit' Google books. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first I also couldn't see it, but then I was able to...huh, weird. Anyways, I've now added in a bit more information from this source - still nothing on Lusitanos, though. However, there were most likely only a handful of horses added to the registry under this rule, and Lusitano blood did not play a significant part in the development of this breed. As far as images go, there are a few decent ones to be found in a Google Image search, but all are copyrighted, and there appears to be a lot of copying going on between websites, so I think it might be a bit difficult to figure out who actually owns the copyright for many of the images. A couple of OK ones on Flickr, as well, although the horse in the majority of them is fat almost to the point of unhealthiness. If you want to contact people, I definitely wouldn't be adverse to having a photo in the article. Honestly, I'm not really even sure that these two points are really even part of the GA criteria, although I agree that it would be nice to have finalization on both of them. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've definitely had at least one horse breed GA without images before. Preferred, but not required, IMHO. Maybe Okie State would release copyright on one of theirs, or at least admit where they got it. However, I'm not particularly motivated to do so... http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/coloradoranger/index.htm Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I thought about it and concluded that it would be nice to have that Colorado Ranger history book, but facts that hadn't made it out of the book to be covered elsewhere couldn't be considered deal-breakers to broad coverage. And same with images. We can cross our fingers for maybe FA one day.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas! I do come back and update "my" GAs when I get new information, and I always want better images, so if either of these become available, I'll definitely be working on this article further. FA is a great goall! Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]