Talk:Kaimanawa horse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's get down to it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These horses are either taken directly to slaughter or are placed at holding farms for later slaughter or adoption by private homes - be nice to have some idea how many are actually adopted.

I took another swing through my sources and a Google search and wasn't able to find anything on adoption vs. slaughter numbers...:( Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nevermind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the 2009 figure (85% housed). -- Avenue (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: which includes 16 plant species listed as endangered - be nice to have some idea of what plant species and how they are threatened (probably by trampling)~~

(Dana, check out the Brumby article, where there is info on environmental degradation linked to feral horse herds, may be able to borrow, though may be too Australia-specific. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

I added some on the various plant species, including a few specifics that I found that could be bluelinked. The entire list is included in the appendix I used as a reference, so if people wish the entire list, it's easily accessible. Also added that they were in danger due to trampling and overgrazing. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: Kaimanawas are of special value because of their low rate of interaction with humans. - be nice to elaborate here. Just a sentence or two why.~~

Mainly because lower rate of human interaction theoretically equals more wild characteristics vs domestic, and this would be of interest to equine behavioralists. Added.

Overall, nice read and nearly there. If the above info is unavailable then just note it above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Are there no pictures on flickr or anywhere? Wow.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I did notice this one. I wonder if we ask him nicely...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I really don't like that photo. It's a bad photo that's been tweaked and photoshopped almost into oblivion. However, I guess any photo is better than no photo. The main problem is that I'm basically Flickr illiterate, and so I have no idea how to contact a user there. I highly doubt he'll release the photo, since so much artistic stuff has been done to it, but I guess it's worth a try.

Here's another one: [1] It's currently available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license, but maybe they'd be willing to loosen it. -- Avenue (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohh, much nicer photo! I'd be glad to have that one in the article. Again, though, I'm rather Flickr illiterate, and cannot for the life of me figure out how to contact someone. Would someone mind either explaining to me slowly or contacting the photo creator themselves? (The second choice would probably be faster *grin*, but I'm willing to take what I can get!) Dana boomer (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care (or at least answered!) everything above. Thanks for doing this review Cas - it's been waiting around for a while looking for eyes! Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (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:

- hot dang, we need some images, however this does not preclude GA status. NZ is certainly closer for me...only 4 hours in a plane...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas! Your reviews on all of the WPEQ articles are much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Dana! Way to go! For photos, later, if you can't email the Flickr source, maybe email Gwinva and ask her if she can find any PD sources, she lives in NZ now... or maybe they have some government sources the way we have the BLM in the USA. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]