Jump to content

Talk:Welsh Pony and Cob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pre-GA work

[edit]

Montanabw, I added 7 or 8 refs in necessary places and tossed all of the cite needed tags (I HOPE), fixed a few typos and did some rephrasing in places, etc. A couple of the links to the UK society's site appear to be dead, or at least they're giving me an error message. I tried to find stuff about the influence on the Morgan, but didn't have much luck there, although I did find a source from the Morgan Museum. I also found something about the dun gene. I moved the stuff in the trivia section to the history section. White Arabian Filly Neigh 00:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BIG improvement. I'm debating whether to put the four types into an illustrated chart (like we have for the spot patterns at leopard complex) or some sort of structured image gallery (like the life cycle images at rainbow trout). We have a ways to go, but the first step is to clean up and source (or toss) what's already there and your work has been very helpful. Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The leopard gene-type one could be useful. I can work on finding the current urls for the deadlinks. Apparently they moved the pages. White Arabian Filly Neigh 16:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, the wayback machine can find old versions if no new ones can be found. Dang linkrot! I'll put the chart on my to-do list (Need a qpq for DYK? I just put up Ann T. Bowling). Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I help a bit? Added a few things in uses and a reference to use. Horsegeek(talk) 18:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek[reply]

No, go ahead. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is the biggest need, first. USEF and UK breed society rules in particular. Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Welsh Pony and Cob. 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:

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) 04:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Welsh Pony and Cob. 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:

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) 09:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Welsh Pony and Cob/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Extremely stable.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Would be great if the references could be fixed. References 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 26 are not working, and reference 7 does not seem to have anything on topic. Also, would be nice if any web citations could be archived too, to preserve the link when it dies.
  • Earwig shows a significant copyvio with this which uses this. However, it seems to me like a wiki mirror, as the date when the information was added to Wikipedia seems much earlier than that in the mirror. Just to be on the safe side, I think, if possible, it would be better if you could replace this and this references, as they are in the sub-directory of the possible mirror, and might not be reliable too. (if possible)
  • Also, there is a citation needed tag. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review. I've removed the sentence that needed a citation since I couldn't find any sources to confirm it. I am working on replacing the rest of the dead links, though it might take a day or so. After that I'll check out the copyvio potential and try to get more difference between the sources and here. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried finding a resource for it too, but was unable to. So, I thought to leave it for you. Also, take your time for the article. Just let me know when the issues are solved (though I will keep checking it in the watchlist and improve it too myself).
    The copyvio is cool. Not an issue on that. Basically, the website is a mirror and references another website without any content publish date and also seems like a mirror to me. So, that is not an issue. In sum, only the references are to be fixed now.
  • Hi Anityavargwa. this source is a message board or chat forum of some source that clearly was copying a page from the WP article. The WPCS links are reliable, as they are from the official breed society, and appear to now be directly linked to them, but earwig isn't flagging them anyway. I also tossed a couple of overlinks that either aren't needed or not verifiable from source materials. Montanabw(talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that trotonline was copying the wikipedia article, as its date is 18-06-2010, but the content added on Wikipedia was before that (also, after I seeked advice from chiswick). So, I said that there is no issue of copyvio. The only issue remaining is fixing the references section. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think all but ref 7 are either fixed or on the Wayback machine where you can read what they said. I'm going to find and replace 7, or if I absolutely can't I'll remove the sentence it supports. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Awesome prose! I could rarely find (if not find at all!) any issues with the prose part, it is really great. Also, good work, and it is an obvious pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reference [1] is broken. I found this page http://imh.org/exhibits/online/breeds-of-the-world/europe/welsh-ponies-and-cobs/, but it doesn't support the following points in the Wikipedia article text: 1. It says that Trotting Comet was foaled in 1836, not 1840. 2. It also suggests that the mare of True Briton was a Welsh Cob rather than an Arab.

Reference [23] is also broken, but I am unsure what it refers to: A. If it is the characteristics of sections C and D then it needs to be changed to this page. https://wpcs.uk.com/join-the-society/breed-info/ B. If if is the cob's use for driving, then it is mentioned on this page. https://wpcs.uk.com/join-the-society/history-of-the-society/

82.10.142.150 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welsh_Pony_and_Cob&oldid=1233812432"