Talk:Lusitano/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed
As of the March 6, 2010 version


 * In the first paragraph of the history section: "...one modern theory states that the bond between Iberian man and horse was the initial inspiration for the centaur, which was believed to come from the area of the Tagus River." --This requires a reference. Who developed this "theory" (I'm hoping this isn't original research)
 * The IMH ref that follows the next sentence is also the ref for this sentence. Would you like me to repeat the ref? (I'm not keen on having successive sentences that are all referenced to the same place each have their own references, but we've done it before with controversial info, so I won't whine too much!)
 * Being that the text makes reference to a "theory", it is necessary to cite that reference. (Before I was confused if the source was from ref 1 or ref 3).


 * Ref 31 is a broken link
 * Fixed by replacing link with another site hosting the same article. Stupid website, it was only a little over a month ago that I accessed that article...


 * Ref 5 and the second external link do not appear to be in English. For these, the language in which the article is written should be noted (as it is in ref 19, for example)
 * Added language to #5, changed EL to English version of website.


 * In the "Registration" section, the acronym "PRE" is given in the second paragraph, but it is not defined until the third paragraph. Acronyms should be defined upon their first use.
 * Fixed, I believe.

Thanks for the review, Tea with toast! I hope I have addressed the issues above to your satisfaction. Please let me know if you have any further comments! Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article assessment
I find that this article meets the Good article criteria --Tea with toast (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is well written and complies with the manual of style.
 * 2) The article is factually accurate and is supported by reliable sources.
 * 3) The article covers the main aspects of the topic without delving into unnecessary detail.
 * 4) The article is written in a neutral tone.
 * 5) The article's text is stable.
 * 6) The article article has tasteful and appropriate images.

Additional areas for expantion
In case there is an interest to bring this article to featured status, here are some areas that could be further developed:
 * The history section could be split into subsections (eg. Ancient, Medieval, and modern history) with appropriate expansion for those subsections.
 * Is there more info available on each of the 6 foundation horses?
 * The registration section is a bit complicated. Is there a way to simplify it or make it more approachable to readers?
 * Further expand on the characteristics -how does this breed compare to other similar breeds?

Overall, the article is in fine shape. Great job! --Tea with toast (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! I do plan to take this article to FAC at some point in the (probably far) future, so these comments will be helpful. Dana boomer (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)