Talk:Azteca horse/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Nice prose, easy to understand even for people like myself who don't know loads about horses.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead section summarises the article contents nicely.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Reference 5 to the IMH seems to point to the wrong page.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Can't think of anything that's missing, all the main points are covered.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All from Commons and correctly licensed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Nice pictures that add to the article and simple but useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll pass this once that stray reference is fixed. Cheers, BigDom 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. IMH changes their website around at least once a year, and they never leave redirects - it's extremely annoying! :( Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll pass it now. Well done, BigDom 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)