Talk:American Saddlebred/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 06:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review and will study the article in detail in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First reading
In general the article is well laid out and well-written. Because I am from the UK, I tend to think usages that are not acceptable in British English are wrong. However, if you feel some of the points that I don't like are OK in the United States, you should disregard what I say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Descending from riding-type horses bred at the time of American Revolution, ..." "Descended" and "the American Revolution"?
 * "American Saddlebreds stand 15 to 17 hands (60 to 68 inches, 152 to 173 cm) high[1] averaging 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm) [2] and weigh between 1,000 to 1,200 pounds (450 to 540 kg)." - I would put a comma after the first set of measurements, and I think you need "and" rather than "to" in the last set which is a "between" range.
 * "The Saddlebred has origins in the Galloway and Hobby horses of the British Isles, animals sometimes called palfreys, and who had ambling gaits that were brought to the United States by early settlers." - The "and" after palfreys should be omitted and I would use "which" rather than "who", which I reserve for humans.
 * "Its existence was first documented in 1776 letter when an American diplomat wrote the Continental Congress ..." - "a 1776 letter" and "to the Continental Congress"?
 * "... a descendent of the Thoroughbred Messenger. Messenger is also considered ..." - It is undesirable to finish a sentence and start the next with the same word.
 * I'm puzzled why the fourth paragraph of the 19th Century section starts talking about "Morgan studbooks".
 * We're trying to demonstrate that while there were private studbooks earlier, the Saddlebred studbook was the first public association. I've rewritten this to try to explain it better. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "... was instrumental in forming the organization." - Which organization?
 * "Saddlebred horse shows standards continued to evolve ..." - Apostrophe needed.
 * "The industry slowed during World War II," - What industry?
 * "... the first, and only, Saddlebred to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated." - Needs a citation.
 * This was cited at the end of the next sentence, but I've added a duplicate ref here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Also in 1917, the American Horse Shows Association, now the United States Equestrian Federation, formed, which began ..." - "was formed and began".
 * "... the hair at the top of their tails, the dock trimmed short." - Punctuation.
 * "Some Saddlebreds have also been suitable for fox hunting, cutting and roping." - The present tense would be better and a better wikilink for "cutting" is needed.
 * "Because they are so closely affiliated with their traditional show ring competition, elsewhere they sometimes are mistaken for warmbloods or Thoroughbred crosses." - Could be better phrased.
 * "Owners and exhibitors of the breed have included numerous other celebrities, such as Clark Gable ..." - Could be better phrased.
 * I will consider the lead later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think I have addressed everything above. I replied to a couple; the rest I just took care of in the article. Please let me know if there is anything I missed or need to address further. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good! I think the lead needs to be enlarged in order for it to fully summarize the rest of the article. It needs to have more on the history and characteristics of the breed with perhaps less emphasis on the health problems. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead with more information on the history, uses and characteristics. I didn't remove any of the information on health problems, because there was just one sentence about them, but the expansion of the rest of the information has caused the health info to take up proportionately less space. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Criteria

 * 1a The article is well written
 * 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and the Lead section has recently been improved.
 * 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
 * 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
 * 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
 * 4 The article is neutral.
 * 5 The article has been expanded and improved by the nominator and Montanabw since late January and there has not been any significant edit warring.
 * 6 The images are mostly appropriately licensed with one being in the public domain, having been created over one hundred years ago.
 * 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
 * Overall assessment - Pass.
 * Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)