Talk:Cumberland Island horse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 03:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

, I will begin this review in the next few days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thank you for all your hard work in researching and writing this fantastic article! I look forward to reviewing it for GA! -- Caponer (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

, I have completed a thorough review of this article and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. Before passage to Good Article status, I have a few comments and questions that need to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Once again, you've done an extraordinary job researching and writing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead
 * The lead section summarizes the article well, but could probably use more content from the "Characteristics" section. I would suggest adding the study regarding high band instability, with mares not generally forming close relationships with each other and commonly switching which stallion they banded with, and juveniles dispersing quickly. It could also be mentioned that there was a high number of co-dominant stallions, where two or more stallions would lead a band together, and alternate breeding of the bands' mares.
 * Mention Jack Kingston by name in the final sentence.

History
 * In the first sentence, I suggest wiki-linking native to Indigenous (ecology).
 * Add comma after "However" in the third sentence of the first paragraph.
 * Add comma after "In the 1700s" in the fourth sentence.
 * De-link Robert Stafford as it links to an article for a Vermont governor. I suggest adding a comma after Robert Stafford's name.
 * Horse meat should probably be written as two words here.
 * Add comma after "Around 1881".
 * In the second paragraph of the "History" section, "Park Service" is used after the first instance of "National Park Service." I would select a consistent term for NPS to be used throughout the article after its first use, whether that be "National Park Service" or "NPS".
 * Should it be mentioned that in 1972 when the NPS acquired the island, that it became part of the Cumberland Island National Seashore?

Characteristics
 * In the second sentence of the first paragraph, horse should probably be plural here.
 * In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I suggest adding an Oxford comma after disease, since Oxford commas are used throughout the rest of the article.
 * In the first sentence of the second paragraph, could it be specified which organization/group/institution conducted the 2000 study?

Controversy and management
 * In the first sentence of the first paragraph, could it be specified which organization/group/institution conducted the 1988 study? All studies mentioned should probably list who conducted them.
 * Do we know why Congressman Kingston wanted to prevent management of the horses?
 * Sidebar comment: I can't help but take note that the burden of contraception was placed on the female horses by the researchers. Why not sterilize some of the many bachelor stallions!?
 * The study recommends that female horses be given contraception, because they state that the efficacy of stallion-based pregnancy prevention decreases significantly with the types of high herd instability seen on the island. I think (?) this is due to the fact that mare-based contraception can be administered via dart-gun, where as stallion-based requires surgery, and completing surgeries and aftercare on a bunch of feral stallions is not any vets idea of a good time. This is OR however, and the study simply notes that the researchers recommend mare-based contraception. Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the term "livestock" is used. Are there other feral animal species on the island besides the horses?

Thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed everything above, with the exception of one bullet point where I added a comment. Let me know if there is anything I missed, or if you have any further comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dana boomer, thank you for addressing all my above comments in both a timely and efficient manner. It is always a privilege to review your great work. Your subject matter expertise and eye for detail are always evident in your work. Thank you for your in-depth answer to my above comment--it certainly makes more sense to me now that you've explained the rationale to me! With that said, I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)