Talk:Nokota horse

Untitled

The Nokota horse information is great but it doesn't list the web site for the Nokota Horse Conservancy which is the authoritative source for Nokota horse information and the breed registry.

[1]

Please visit the site and see lots of great photos! Maybe you'll want to help "Save the Native Horse of the Northern Plains."

This is a nice article, but strays from the truth when stating that the Nokota horses at the Kuntz ranch are the only remaining decendants of the orriginal wild feral horses that ran in the park in the early years of it's existence. The Nokota Horse site and other authoritative documents (Castle McLaughlin's report, written in 1989) state that Leo Kuntz crossed the early Nokotas with Quarter Horse and Paint, amoung other breeds because of a fear of inbreeding. It is clear from Tom Tescher's records, (Tom was the only one to keep accurate records of the horses for 50 years) that most of the horses that run in the park today are not of other breeds. There is no Arabian blood and very little QH blood left. The bucking horse was the only one to be very successful in passing on his blood, and his is quite diluted. My question is, why should they not also be accepted as Nokota Horses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.227.157 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources for this information, feel free to edit the article, it is helpful to other editors if you list your source material either in footnotes, or at least as a reference at the bottom of the article page. See WP:V for more help on sources if you need it. Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 17:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've linked badlands in line 1 and fixed a typo
• Image OK
• Refs mainly OK, except that I don't think that there should be a link to the Storey page. It's not an extract from the book just a puffy review with links to commercial sites
  • What? When I click on the link it takes me to the Google books view of page 195... Not sure what's up with this, but I don't really want to remove it, since it takes at least me to the right page.
    • Strange, I still get the review page. Maybe it depends on the country you are accessing from (different copyright law?). Anyway, if it works for you, that's fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Capitalisation of refs is inconsistent, for instance ref 7 is lc apart from proper name, ref 8 is capitalised throughout. Other refs similarly variable Even if these are the original forms, I would be inclined to standardise.
  • I can't find any guideline where it says that journal/magazine articles need to be standardized with each other, and this has never been brought up as an issue on any of the other GA/FA articles I've taken through review processes. I know you're not supposed to have them as all capitals, but I've never heard that you should change whether the first letter is capitalized to be standardized.
    • OK, I'm not sure why I think that, so I'll pass on that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

*First three sentences of lead go The...They...The

• • Fixed.

*Breed characteristics content OK, but again wanders between singular and plural

• • Fixed, I think.

* HT Ranch I wouldn't bother to link unless you are planning to write the article

• • Delinked.
• won the right to not be governed by... - clunky, what about won exemption from...?
  • Fixed.
• for the purposes twice in consecutive sentence in last para of History, I replaced one
• I assume the breed name is derived from "North Dakota", if that's correct can we say it?
  • Actually from the Nokota Indian tribe. A bit added in the Breed characterstics section.
    • So much for my assumption! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are all my queries. The "English discipline" link wasn't as interesting as it sounded (:

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've taken care of or responded to all of the issues above. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added final comments above, let's do it
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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: