Talk:Waxy (horse)
 | Waxy (horse) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 28, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when Waxy won the 1793 Derby Stakes, more than half of the competing racehorses were his siblings sired by Pot-8-Os? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Waxy (horse)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lead
- "Waxy (1790–18 April 1818) was a British Thoroughbred racehorse that won the 1793 Epsom Derby and was an influential sire in the early part of the nineteenth century."
Wouldn't that also include the late 18th century?
- Included eighteenth century in lead
- Background
- Pot-8-Os. No need to link twice.
- Delinked
- Description
- "Waxy was a "handsome, rich bay, with a white stocking on the off-hind [right] leg, good length, and especially beautiful quarters."" Can you say who quoted this?
- Attributed to Sam Chifney Froggerlaura (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gohanna needs to be wikilinked where it first appears and delinked further down
- Fixed
- 1794
- four-year-old season
- Lewes doesn't need to be linked again
- Fixed
- 1796
- six-year-old season
- Delink Salisbury, already linked.
- Fixed
- Stud career
- Delink Lewes and Newmarket
- Fixed
- Fillies
- "Corinne was foaled in 1815 out of the Oaks winner Briseis. She won the Oaks and 1,000 Guineas but was an unsuccessful broodmare" When did she win the Oaks and 1,000 Guineas?
- Specified 1818.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Looks to have the requirements for a Good Article in my opinion. It could do with a bit more meat in places but looks sound I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)