Talk:Manipuri pony/GA1

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dana boomer. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. I'll most likely finish it within a few days, but if things get busy, it could take up to a week. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All fine except some very small points below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A good amount of coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NVOP.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable, no edit wars.
 * 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):
 * One captioned image from Wikipedia Commons.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:

Overall very, very good. A couple of small points:
 * "Australian Waler horses were brought to Manipur during World War II for use as pack horses, and may also have contributed genetically to the Manipuri pony." I could find the first part of the sentence in the source very easily, but not the second part. It's possible I missed it, but I did scan the source a few times.
 * "Between 1859 and 1916, Manipuri ponies were extremely desired by the British for playing polo,[4] and were further infusions of Arabian blood in the 19th century, as British administrators and military officers sought to upgrade their polo ponies." Should this be "there were further infusions"? I couldn't tell if that's what you meant or not.

That's all. I'll put the GA on hold until the two points above are clarified. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review and the copyedit - they are much appreciated! In regards to your first point above, I can't find the information on the website either, so I have removed the entire sentence. I swear it was originally in there, but it's obviously not now, I can't find an archived version of the page to double check, and I can't find another source to back up the information :( Oh well... As to the second point, that was much easier - a simple typo and I have added "there". Again, thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :-) Great, I'm now passing the article. Congratulations! Moisejp (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)