Talk:Welsh Pony and Cob/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Extremely stable.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Extremely stable.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Would be great if the references could be fixed. References 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 26 are not working, and reference 7 does not seem to have anything on topic. Also, would be nice if any web citations could be archived too, to preserve the link when it dies.
 * Earwig shows a significant copyvio with this which uses this. However, it seems to me like a wiki mirror, as the date when the information was added to Wikipedia seems much earlier than that in the mirror. Just to be on the safe side, I think, if possible, it would be better if you could replace this and this references, as they are in the sub-directory of the possible mirror, and might not be reliable too. (if possible)
 * Also, there is a citation needed tag. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I've removed the sentence that needed a citation since I couldn't find any sources to confirm it. I am working on replacing the rest of the dead links, though it might take a day or so. After that I'll check out the copyvio potential and try to get more difference between the sources and here. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried finding a resource for it too, but was unable to. So, I thought to leave it for you. Also, take your time for the article. Just let me know when the issues are solved (though I will keep checking it in the watchlist and improve it too myself).
 * The copyvio is cool. Not an issue on that. Basically, the website is a mirror and references another website without any content publish date and also seems like a mirror to me. So, that is not an issue. In sum, only the references are to be fixed now.


 * Hi Anityavargwa. this source is a message board or chat forum of some source that clearly was copying a page from the WP article. The WPCS links are reliable, as they are from the official breed society, and appear to now be directly linked to them, but earwig isn't flagging them anyway. I also tossed a couple of overlinks that either aren't needed or not verifiable from source materials.  Montanabw (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that trotonline was copying the wikipedia article, as its date is 18-06-2010, but the content added on Wikipedia was before that (also, after I seeked advice from chiswick). So, I said that there is no issue of copyvio. The only issue remaining is fixing the references section. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I think all but ref 7 are either fixed or on the Wayback machine where you can read what they said. I'm going to find and replace 7, or if I absolutely can't I'll remove the sentence it supports. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Awesome prose! I could rarely find (if not find at all!) any issues with the prose part, it is really great. Also, good work, and it is an obvious pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)