Talk:Horse Protection Act of 1970/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article came up for review at WP:GAN. It looked to be a rather intriguing article, so I'm going to review it. Let me start by thanking all of the contributors for their hard work, and for making this article quite high quality. Now, let's break this down section by section:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I have one note on the lead in regard to the prose, and that is the specific note of the USDA using GC/MS, simply because it's not a main point of the article. There are a few other areas that read a little clunky as well: the Contents of the Act section has all but one sentence starting with "The", and in the impact section, three paragraphs in a row start with "In (such and such a time)..." These might need to be reworded to improve both sentence and paragraph fluency and make the article easier to read.
I have reworked that sentence in the lead (and added another) to better summarize the pertinent section of the article, without the excessive focus on GC/MS. Are we reading the same Contents section? I'm seeing 5 of 10 sentences that start with "the"...and I'm not sure how to reword it without putting more of the statue numbers first, which would get really repetitive in the other direction. In the Impact section there were not three successive sentences starting with "In date..." (there were intervening sentences between each pair), but I have reworded one anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't three successive sentences starting with "In ..." in the Impact, there were three paragraphs starting that way. Seeing as how eyes jump from paragraph to paragraph when one reads articles, it's again a matter of fluency and variance to be easier to read (I call this paragraph fluency), although much less important than sentence fluency. I might see if I can be bold and give it a slight copyedit tonight to help with that. Same thing with the Contents section, and I do recognize that's a tough one because legal statutes often don't read quite so smoothly. Oftentimes I find that the easiest way to increase sentence fluency is to both vary the way sentences start off, and also to combine like ideas using conjunctions to create varied sentence lengths, which are easier on the reader. That being said, the more I look at the Contents section, the more I can see that conjoining sentences to vary length will be very difficult. Perhaps it will be something that will get noticed more should this article reach WP:FAC, but as it is, I'm okay with leaving the Contents section as it is. The rewordings you've done are very nice and the article reads smoother, so I believe we meet 1a at this point. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 03:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I was a bit snarky last night - my only excuse it that I was tired :( I've done a bit more work to these two areas, which hopefully make them read more smoothly. Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Checklinks reveals no dead links, a good start. A couple of sections may need some touchup in regards to reference, however: early on in the Background section there is a citation for the 1960's detail, but not one for all of the information for the '50s. That may not be the case and the one in-line citation may be for both, but think of the reader and make it known if that's the case, so it cannot be questioned as original research. I'm also wondering why 15 U.S.C. § 1821 is formatted as an external link whereas later on in the same paragraph, § 1824 is formatted as an in-line citation. Lastly, how is the "general" reference at the bottom of the list used in the article? If it is just for general reading about the topic and not used in any in-line citations, would it be better placed within External links or in its own Further reading section?
The first ref in the Background section covers all of the preceding information in that section. As this is just general background info and not controversial, I don't see the point of duplicating the reference and adding a sea of little blue links. I've removed the external link to §1821, as it is already linked in the lead. Initially we had all of the statues linked to an external link of the full text, but another reviewer said it made for too many external links in the paragraph. The general reference (the Case article) gives the full information for the short refs used inline as numbers 13 and 14. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the Case article, I can see that now. It still seems somewhat strange to me to be formatted that way because it's only used twice, but I wouldn't say it's in violation of the criteria or the manual of style. Removal of the external link is quite helpful with consistency, and is good. As for the duplicating reference, I would call that a polite difference in opinion, but again, not a dealbreaker because it's not in violation of the criteria. I do agree about a sea of blue links being excessive and I dislike that myself, but have always thought and practiced that anything that could be possibly be conceived as original research should be cited, controversial or not. That, however, is merely just opinion, I suppose, and with that cleared up I would agree that we meet the criteria at this point. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 03:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Appears to me that the article covers all major aspects of the subject, and is focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Well balanced, no POV issues I can see. Notes on both shoddy enforcement and legal objections read without taking sides and are well referenced.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
A check of the edit history indicates stability of the article. No edit warring, no conflict.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are free. I think it could use one more, maybe in the background or implementation section, but that's a personal opinion and the article does meet criterion 6.
I've added an image of a Tennessee Walking Horse to the Background section, so that people can see the type of riding horse we're talking about. Unfortunately, we don't have any really good images of it or the Racking horse, which are the most affected by this Act. Hopefully at some point we'll get some :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is very nice. I believe it does help the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to place this on hold for the time being. I think just some light work should put this article in great shape and ready to meet the GA criteria. The only concerns I have are criteria 1a, 2a, and 2c, but they're only minor concerns.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Red Phoenix. These look like minor issues, and I should be able to address them a bit later this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the review! I believe I have replied to all of your comments above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem; I'm always glad to review. I've left some more comments above, but I would say we meet GA status at this point. Well done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review and pass! Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]