Talk:Joe Daniels (horse)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  05:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian  Paul  05:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is!


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * 1) Under "Early life": "Dolly Carter was by the imported stallion Glencoe and out of a mare named Brown's black mare Mavis who was sired by Wagner" seems that there is a word missing here.
 * Unfortunately the stud book entry is "1st dam Brown's black mare Mavis by Wagner" - which is pretty much what I've stated. (First dam is the mother of a foal - in this case, the entry is for Dolly Carter, so her mother is "Brown's black mare Mavis" who was sired by Wagner) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The "Racing career" section becomes very repetitive and difficult to read. The words "won" and "race" appear constantly and, while I'm aware that there are a limited number of ways to express these concepts in the proper context, even having two or three different phrasing and alternating them would help with readability here. For example, you can win a race, but you can also capture it, which, even if it sounds a little out of place, is still better than reading a dozen varieties of the word "win" in one paragraph (win, winning, won etc.) Sometimes the same word even happens twice in the same sentence! ("On October 18, 1872, the two horse raced in a three heat race,") Paragraph flow is a bit of a problem in this article overall - many sections read more like a list of facts rather than a narrative about the horse. I think that mixing up the word choice will help a lot in this regard.
 * 2) Same section, third paragraph "The value to the winner was $4450 (approximately $0 today), second place went to Mate and third to Meteor." Either the punctuation needs to change here (perhaps a semicolon?) or this needs to be split into two sentences, because these ideas requires more than a comma to connect them.
 * I've tried to vary a bit more on the "win" stuff and fixed the last one. Let me know what you think. Luckily, I am not planning on taking this article to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, I'm allowing for seven days for improvements to be made on the article and will be checking this page daily to address any comments or concerns that you might have! Canadian  Paul  04:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Much improved now. For the first one, I meant that there was no verb after "Dolly Carter was". Anyways, I believe that the article now meets GA standards and I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian   Paul  05:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)