Talk:Lipizzan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall commence my review shortly. Generally, I first read through the article, noting any prose adjustments or items that jump out at me, and then I paste in one of the GA checklists, and go through that.  Go  Phightins  !  02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What dates back hundreds of years, the methods or classical dressage? If the latter, then it should be If the former, then perhaps it could be reworked so it is not ambiguous.
 * Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
 * Forgive what is undoubtedly a stupid question, but what exactly is a stud? The term seems to be used in multiple contexts, so inferring is proving a little difficult ...
 * Wikilinked at first use. Beter? and, in this context, a farm where stallions live, or "at stud" in verb form, meaning that the stallion is getting to do, um, the work of being a stallion (as opposed to being in training, and NOT getting to, um, do the stallion stuff....)  --MTBW
 * I believe it should be per the MOS
 * Fixed--MTBW
 * Is this particularly relevant to the breed of horse?
 * Yes, it is the home performance hall for the horses, kind of like Yankee Stadium to the Yankees, if that makes sense. --MTBW
 * What's a studbook? A recording of "studs"?? Were there any consequences of the book's destruction?
 * Wikilinked, rephrased and clarified. Better?  --MTBW
 * Is the "up" necessary? Would
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * All right; I am down to the characteristics section, and will continue this later. Nice article, so far!  Go  Phightins  !  02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing this, I have addressed your comments above, and await and answers or further review!  Montanabw (talk)  06:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

--  Go  Phightins  !  18:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, resuming the review. I apologize again for the delay.  Go  Phightins  !  18:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume hands is the standard measurement for horses?
 * Yes. And we spent a lot of time with very good folks in template land creating the convert template that did hands, inches and cm! --MTBW
 * Image suggestion - if you are following the L-R-L-R pattern (which I think would look best, there are two consecutive ones on the right in the last section, and at least on my screen, it would look better of those two alternated R-L which would make the one in the characteristics section on the right, which would look better, as the text would no longer be detached from the header. Personal preference, though.
 * I'm not bound to a strict L-R-L-R where it is illogical, but I moved around the images so they are now that way, swapping one that was oriented the "wrong" direction for where it needed to go, does that make it better? --MTBW
 * to
 * Remove or rephrase "contrary to popular belief" - it sounds cliche-y, and has little encyclopedic value "a common misconception" might be better
 * OK, fixed --MTBW
 * to (too many "todays")
 * Rephrased. Better? --MTBW

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * There are still some jargony sections, particularly in the training section and the last two history subsections.
 * I'm taking a whack at what I think needs improvement, but ping with hidden text at trouble spots - or here - the areas of concern... as an aficionado, it's sometimes difficult for me to assess what technical language can be figured out from context, where the wikilinking of a word covers it, and where it's total gibberish. We have an extensive glossary of equestrian terms that we keep around to help with linking where there isn't an article otherwise. --MTBW
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The lead looks all right.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Assuming good faith on the off-line sources.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Yup.
 * C. No original research:
 * Assuming good faith again ...
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I wasn't left wondering; seems to have similar content to other featured content on horses. I looked at Arabian horse, for example. There is not a ton on "modern uses" in this article (a fair amount on training, but are there any other important topics? I don't know ...).
 * B. Focused:
 * Very comfortable length, and little deviation.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yup.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars of which I am aware.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * I reviewed all the images, and they all appear to have valid licensing, assuming good faith on those who said the images were their own work (I checked usernames, and have no reason to believe otherwise).
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I will say, for what it's worth, that I was told that image captions should never have ending punctuation. That said, I make it a point not to delve too deep into the MOS, so I have no strong opinion. Whatever you want to do.
 * I killed caption punctuation. No worries. --MTBW
 * 1) Overall: I just need to do another readthrough for jargon, but otherwise, I think we are OK.  Go  Phightins  !  02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Will promote after another readthrough for jargon.  Go  Phightins  !  02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Great thanks, all comments welcome!  Montanabw (talk)  02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything glaring that inhibits the article from meeting the GA criteria. Passing. Good work to you and .  Go  Phightins  !  00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)