Talk:Garrett's Miss Pawhuska/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * See below for suggestions.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Offline sources accepted in good faith, and the online source checks out. You might consider linking directly to the PDF; I had to search for the link to the article about the horse.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I'm glad you didn't use the "gentle and kind" language the online source uses.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * In the non-free rationale, the article is listed as "Garrett's Miss Pawhusak"; I assume this is just a typo, but if it's not, I want to bring it to your attention.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * The early life section where you talk about the lineage using multiple "by"s might cause a little confusion.
 * I don't think you need the clause about how her first race was delayed ... it doesn't add anything to her story, IMHO.
 * What does it mean to "slip" a foal?
 * You had "the Garrett's ranch", but I wasn't sure if it was just Dee Garrett or the entire family. Since the article talks about several family members, I changed it to Garretts'. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)