Talk:Limousin cattle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Typos spotted at first read-through:

• megafuana – megafauna
• non purebred – non-purebred
• race pure certifee – race pure certifié
• well muscled – well-muscled
• Charaolais – Charolais
• Limousin's live weight – Limousins' live weight
• program should be programme throughout (in BrEng "program" is reserved for computers) Tim riley talk 12:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done
Detailed comments:

• Origin
  • The first two paragraphs and most of the third have no citations  Done
  • Can I take it that citations 10 and 11 cover the whole of their paragraph? Yes They cover the whole of their paragraph.
• The situation at the beginning of the 19th century
  • Header: too many definite articles, and we have three opening paras all about the previous century Sorry, not sure how to fix this!
  • Turgot – if this is the same Turgot who was Louis XVI's finance minister he deserves a blue link, as does Antoine de Sartine.  Done
  • Second para: the various towns and areas should be linked
  • 1.5 meters – as the article is in BrEng it seems odd to use the American spelling here.  Done
  • withers – link wanted  Done
  • phylloxera – link wanted  Done
  • Poissy – ditto  Done
• European Union Law
  • The first and last paragraphs lack citations. Done
• Evolution of Herd Book
  • Really excellent graphics here – top notch
• After June 2008
  • Next-to-last para lacks citations  Done
• French performance recording and genetic prediction
  • Third and sixth paras lack citations
• Genetic basis for muscling in Limousin cattle
  • First para – no citations
• Genetic basis for crossbreeding
  • This is so far over my head that I don't dare comment on the content, but I will comment that it contains just three citations for its entire 564 word content.
• Notes
  • Some notes are closed with a full stop; others are not

That's it, really. Apart from a few typos, all that stands between the article and promotion to GA is the lack of citations at the various points mentioned. I'll put the review on hold for a week to allow time for this to be addressed. Tim riley talk 13:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this review! @Tim riley: I believe that this is now finished. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The verdict

This is an impressive piece of work, with FA potential. If you are minded to take it on to FAC I'd strongly advise going to peer review first: you have dealt with my comments about lack of citations (except for "Genetic basis for crossbreeding", which please revisit) but the precision of citing though fine for GA will not do for FAC. There are still several small areas where you have uncited statements: nothing to worry about for GA but for FAC you need citations for every jot and tittle. Also you may conceivably get some input on wording from editors more expert than I on the topic. Be that as it may, this meets the GA criteria, in my judgment, and so:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Please let me know if and when you are at peer review or FAC with this article. Happy to chip in. Meanwhile, congratulations on a fine piece of work. Tim riley talk 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)