Talk:Dølehest/GA1

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

Reviewer: BencherliteTalk 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know slightly more about horses after that last GA review, so let's keep improving my knowledge! BencherliteTalk 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just some minor comments – I made a few minor changes, fixed dashes using a helpful script and found a category to add, so the remaining points are:
 * Prose
 * stud book or studbook? You use both
 * I fixed that. Used one word, but two words is equally correct.  But they are all the same now, at least-- MTBW
 * Last sentence of the lead: can we avoid "breeds to breed"?
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * "Clean" x-rays? (I think I know what you mean, i.e. clear of defects, but I'm not sure if "clean" is the best word here.)
 * Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Mazarin was an Arabian imported to Norway in 1934." Seems a little out of place, since you've mentioned him a few sentences ago, then moved on to discuss other stallions, then come back to him.
 * I've moved this around a bit. Mazarin and Odin were the two most important stallions in the history of the type, and so it is important to discuss them together, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "During the same period, a stallion named Brimen 825..." which period, 1840 to 1860, or around 1934?
 * The source actually doesn't say. I've removed "during the same period", as I can't find a source that says when he was bred, used, anything... Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your OSU source says "The difference between the two types has been greatly reduced in recent years due to interbreeding between the types", but I don't really see that pointed out in the article, unless I'm missing something - you mention interbreeding, but not the effect.
 * Added a bit to the characteristics section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One, appropriate and correctly licensed Appropriate, reliable, well-used. No detectable inappropriate usage, no signs of original research or bias Sufficiently broad and detailed. Article is stable. No dablinks, and external links are all functioning correctly.
 * Images
 * Sources
 * Focus and other factors

So, on hold for the traditional period to address or dispute these points. BencherliteTalk 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for another review, Bencherlite! I think that between the two of us, Montana and I have managed to address your comments. Please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have indeed. Passed. BencherliteTalk 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)