Talk:Icelandic horse/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. This will probably take me a few days. Sasata (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sasata, and thanks for taking on the review. Just as a note, I'm going to get hit by a bunch of RL stuff in the next few days, and so may be a bit slower than usual in responding to queries. If it takes me a day or so to respond, please don't think that I'm just ignoring you! Dana boomer (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem... real life seems to affect my wiki editing all the time as well :) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sasata, I wanted to comment that prior to Dana's work, I had been trying to maintain and clean up this article, and her efforts far surpassed mine. This nomination has my full support, both as another WP:EQUINE editor and as a person who has been wanting to see this article improved for quite a while. When Dana is not available, if you have any horse questions in general or want something to be fixed, I can probably pinch hit for her, though I do want to defer any major decisions to the person who actually did all the work! Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I read the article closely, and it's pretty close to GA quality already, IMO. I took the liberty of tweaking the prose in some spots, and adding a few wikilinks I thought would be beneficial. Just have a few comments/questions before I promote the article. Sasata (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "Although small, they are considered horses by most Icelandic breed registries." I'd mention that they are about the same size as ponies; the sentence confused me until I got clarification in the breed characteristics section.

• After doing a bit of googling, I think it's more standard to spell worshiped with a double p.

• suggest wikilinking Iceland, and unlinking disease

Breed characteristics

• "The horses tend to not be spooky," I know what is meant, but suggest changing the wording to "...tend to not be easily spooked..." to exclude the alternate meaning. Also, the latter half of that sentence sounds conjectural, so it should be cited.
  • This was referenced by the next citation, but I've doubled up the referencing so there's one just after this sentence. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaits

• why is largo italicized?

History

• "The ancestor of the Icelandic horse was probably brought..." Maybe it would be better to pluralize this (ancestors...were)?

History

• "Thus crossbreeding ended, and the breed has now been bred pure in Iceland for more than 1000 years" the wikilink "pure" leads to some Harry Potter article, which I doubt is what was intended. (Same thing with "purity of bloodline" later)

• "Throughout the history of Iceland, natural selection played a major role, as large numbers of horses died from lack of food and exposure to the elements" It is not clearly specified what natural selection played a major role in.

• "... specifically after 1920, selective breeding again became important." what was special about 1920?

Uses

• "The first official Icelandic horse race was held at Akureyri in 1874," citation please
  • This was referenced by the next citation, but I doubled up the references. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The first shows specializing in classes for breeding stock were held in 1906." Clarify what these classes are for an equine newbie like me.
  • I think I fixed this to be more clear by adding some wikilinks and a few more words, but let me know if you need more. They're basically classes where horses are led around in circles and the judges pick which ones best meet the breed standards :) Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Registration

• "...(FEIF) serving as an overarching international parent..." overarching is a pretty obscure word... could overseeing or governing (or something similar) be used instead?

Thanks for the review. I think I've taken care of all of the comments above - I've added specific responses to a few of them. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The nominator has addressed all reviewer comments, and it meets all GA criteria, so I am happy to promote it. Sasata (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the GA review and the prompt pass. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)