Talk:Manipuri pony

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manipuri pony article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Manipuri pony has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.

This article is about a topic whose name is originally rendered in the Meitei script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Meitei script.
For more information, see: MOS:FOREIGN.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manipuri Pony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dana boomer. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. I'll most likely finish it within a few days, but if things get busy, it could take up to a week. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is well written.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All fine except some very small points below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A good amount of coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NVOP.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable, no edit wars.
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):
One captioned image from Wikipedia Commons.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:
Overall very, very good. A couple of small points:

"Australian Waler horses were brought to Manipur during World War II for use as pack horses, and may also have contributed genetically to the Manipuri pony." I could find the first part of the sentence in the source very easily, but not the second part. It's possible I missed it, but I did scan the source a few times.
"Between 1859 and 1916, Manipuri ponies were extremely desired by the British for playing polo,[4] and were further infusions of Arabian blood in the 19th century, as British administrators and military officers sought to upgrade their polo ponies." Should this be "there were further infusions"? I couldn't tell if that's what you meant or not.

That's all. I'll put the GA on hold until the two points above are clarified. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and the copyedit - they are much appreciated! In regards to your first point above, I can't find the information on the website either, so I have removed the entire sentence. I swear it was originally in there, but it's obviously not now, I can't find an archived version of the page to double check, and I can't find another source to back up the information :( Oh well... As to the second point, that was much easier - a simple typo and I have added "there". Again, thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) Great, I'm now passing the article. Congratulations! Moisejp (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manipuri pony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111204438/http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/3656-the-gods-of-polo.html to http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/3656-the-gods-of-polo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]