Wikipedia:Peer review/Banker Horse/archive1

Banker Horse

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…this article is in the scope of WikiProject AP Biology 2008. It needs a good review on about everything. I will take all the help I can get. : D

Thanks, Yohmom (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To Reviewers: WIkiproject Equine has been watching and commenting on Yohmom's work here, and it has been outstanding.  This article went from a stub to a very nice piece.  We are fully supportive of Yohmom's efforts.   Montanabw (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ther note - since there are over 20 of the AP Biology articles flooding peer review, would someone from WikiProject Equine care to actually do the peer review (pretty please ;-) ) Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruhrfisch, I think most of the real active wikiproject Equine editors helped Yohmom, at least a little bit, so we are conflicted out, but I will ask around, should find a few people who haven't weighte in here.  Montanabw (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from DanaBoomer

Well, the good thing about PR is that it doesn't matter how much of a COI you have, you can still comment. That's one of the (many) nice things about it, as it allows all editors to comment and discuss the article, without there being a final yes/no decision like there is at GA/FA nominations.

Anyway, I've taken a look over the article, and have a few comments. I'm assuming that you want to take this article on to GA, so that's what I'm keeping in mind as I review the article.


 * The lead should be longer. Two paragraphs (not long ones, but not two sentences either) should be good. Make sure that the lead summarizes all sections of the article, but doesn't include any new information.
 * A couple more images would be nice, if you can find them. This isn't a GA requirement (and you already have a nice one in the lead), but try checking around to see if you can find any other good fair-use shots.
 * Make sure that there aren't spaces between punctuation and references in the body. The superscript number should come directly after whatever it's following, with no space in between.✅
 * Make sure that the first time a ref appears in the body is when the full information is given. For example, ref 12 (Vorwald Dohner) is used four times, but the full information isn't given until the last use, and named refs are used for the first three times.  Instead, have the full information in the first use, and use named refs for the last three times.✅
 * Try not to be too abrupt with your prose. For example, in the Characteristics section, you say "Face shape is broad".  Instead, try saying "The shape of the face is broad."  Make sense?✅
 * In the Breed history section, you say that there are "several theories", but then only give two. My dictionary defines several as "more than two, but not many", so please make this consistent.
 * There are a few hidden comments (probably left there by Montana, but I'm not totally sure) in places where more information/explanation should be given.

I've made a few tweaks to the article, just minor c/e stuff. I've watchlisted the article and this PR, so feel free to respond here with any questions you may have. Good luck with the article, it looks like you're doing a great job on this. This is especially true on the referencing - very nice work on the diversity and quality of the sources you've gathered. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As Dana boomer has already said, this article is already looking great. The language is easy to understand, it seems pretty comprehensive and there's a good range of references. So just a few minor points for possible improvement from me.
 * Comments from Bogbumper (Katie)
 * Could/should the infobox have a little bit more detail?
 * Maybe a landscape photo of the islands would give some more context?
 * A bit more information on what Q-ac is? or maybe the sentence is self-explanatory
 * I don't know what a barrier island is, so a link or explanation there would be handy
 * Link to Francis Walsingham✅
 * Check that numbers are rendered in numerals or spelled out as appropriate

Hope that helps. Bogbumper (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)