Talk:Azteca horse/GA1

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

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Nice prose, easy to understand even for people like myself who don't know loads about horses.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead section summarises the article contents nicely.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Reference 5 to the IMH seems to point to the wrong page.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Can't think of anything that's missing, all the main points are covered.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * All from Commons and correctly licensed.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Nice pictures that add to the article and simple but useful captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All from Commons and correctly licensed.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Nice pictures that add to the article and simple but useful captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'll pass this once that stray reference is fixed. Cheers, Big  Dom  14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the link. IMH changes their website around at least once a year, and they never leave redirects - it's extremely annoying! :( Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I'll pass it now. Well done, Big  Dom  16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)