Talk:Garrett's Miss Pawhuska/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See below for suggestions.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Offline sources accepted in good faith, and the online source checks out. You might consider linking directly to the PDF; I had to search for the link to the article about the horse.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm glad you didn't use the "gentle and kind" language the online source uses.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   In the non-free rationale, the article is listed as "Garrett's Miss Pawhusak"; I assume this is just a typo, but if it's not, I want to bring it to your attention.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The early life section where you talk about the lineage using multiple "by"s might cause a little confusion.
• I don't think you need the clause about how her first race was delayed ... it doesn't add anything to her story, IMHO.
• What does it mean to "slip" a foal?
• You had "the Garrett's ranch", but I wasn't sure if it was just Dee Garrett or the entire family. Since the article talks about several family members, I changed it to Garretts'. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)