Talk:Exmoor pony/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

: I made two or three minor grammatical corrections as I reviewed the article; with that out of the way I believe it meets the MoS policies on grammar, layout, and structure. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

: The article possesses a very healthy collection of published sources, to which it makes frequent citations. No original research looks to have been incorporated. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

: It looks as though the article covers all encyclopedically relevant areas of the subject for which reliable third-party information is available. There does not appear to be any cruft or excessive detail mixed into the lot. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

. The article does not seem to show any bias towards or against its subject. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC) . The most recent edits in the history show that the article has not been the ground of any edit wars or disputes for at least since January 2013. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC) : The article is well-illustrated with images that serve relevant purposes to the article. All are from the Wikimedia Commons, and look to be properly licensed. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

After reading through this article, I feel it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)