Talk:Exmoor pony/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

I made two or three minor grammatical corrections as I reviewed the article; with that out of the way I believe it meets the MoS policies on grammar, layout, and structure. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article possesses a very healthy collection of published sources, to which it makes frequent citations. No original research looks to have been incorporated. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

It looks as though the article covers all encyclopedically relevant areas of the subject for which reliable third-party information is available. There does not appear to be any cruft or excessive detail mixed into the lot. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article does not seem to show any bias towards or against its subject. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most recent edits in the history show that the article has not been the ground of any edit wars or disputes for at least since January 2013. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article is well-illustrated with images that serve relevant purposes to the article. All are from the Wikimedia Commons, and look to be properly licensed. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through this article, I feel it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]