Talk:Selle Français/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, let's take a look....will jot notes below....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It can range from 15.1 to 17.3 hands (61 to 71 inches,... - the "it" does not agree with the preceding it exactly - maybe reword the pronoun?

--Rephrased, better? --MTBW
 *  Gray is found, but is much more rare,... - "found" ("Hey I found a Gray horse!!!") - sounds funny...actually why not trim to just, "Gray is much rarer," or "-much less common"

--Done --MTBW
 * In 1958, it was decided to merge all of the half-blood horses in France... - err, any idea on who was doing the deciding?

--Source is unclear, presumably the entity that governs stud books, but unclear in original source. I will ping and see if she can help. --MTBW
 * No sign of Tsaag, but I ran a translation again, and rewrote that bit. Better? --MTBW
 * Hmm, given this is GA not FA, I think I'll let it slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This website...missing the 'ç' ...just a typo or some weird spelling variant?
 * Weird spelling variant. --MTBW

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dana appears to be busy, but I will see if I can address your concerns here. But may be a day or two, big weekend in USA. Montanabw (talk)  16:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just stopping by to check the status of this review. It has been three weeks since it was last touched. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed everything raised here, but was there additional work needed? Dana appears to be swamped IRL, so I'll take over and do any fixes required.   Montanabw (talk)  17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:  I think enough has been done on this article to consider it at a GA waypoint and fulfulling of criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cas, Did we ping on this? She's been pretty inactive this summer, but I hope she will be glad it's got the green!   Montanabw (talk)  04:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)