Talk:Wizard (horse)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 10:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This looks as if it might be the type of article I can review. I will work on it over the next few days but be patient with me as I'm not very experienced at GA reviews yet. I usually ask a more experienced reviewer to have a quick peek over my shoulder as I get towards the end of the review just to be on the safe side. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • 'his Derby conqueror' doesn't feel quite right to me but maybe I'm showing my ignorance and it is terminology commonly used?
   • 'Salivator' finishes one sentence and then starts the next in the second paragraph of 1809 season, which feels a bit clunky to me, so may be worth considering re-jigging a little?

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Both are US PD

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks, I've reworded the sentence with Salivator in and change 'Derby conqueror' to 'Derby winner'. Edwarddutton (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested outside comment here: I agree with Phil's assessments above. The only side note I'd offer is that this article appears a bit marginal for notability; glancing through a number of the sources, only #21 has the in-depth discussion of the subject to count toward notability by the GNG. But I haven't checked them all, and in any case, notability's explicitly not an issue for the GA criteria. Anyway, from what I see, this has no obvious issues and I'd say it's likely to end up as a pass. Thanks again for all your work on these, Edward! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you both for all your help and understanding with this. Everything now has a green check mark! SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)