Talk:Castillonnais/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC) At first glance, the article appears to be largely in-line with the GA criteria. I will be looking at it in more detail shortly. I propose making minor copyedits and bringing any more major matters to this review. I was initially amused to see that the horses are used for logging and packing food, leaving me with a mental image of a horse working in a food processing factory!

Here are a few comments on the prose: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Members of the breed are either dark bay and black, and have pangare color modification, " - Do you mean dark bay or black? Is the pangare modification optional? As it stands, this sentence is unsatisfactory.

• I think I've addressed this... Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The physical characteristics of the breed are currently in flux" - Do you mean the characteristics have not been precisely defined? I think this needs rewording as does the related sentence in the lead.

• I've done a bit of tweaking on this, so please see what you think. Basically, there is an official breed standard (what the ideal horse should look like), which breeders are working towards, but (and I'm heading into OR territory here) because of the low breed numbers and sometimes remote breeding locations, different breed lines can sometimes have some pretty varied physical types, with some horses popping up that look like straight-up Andalusian horses. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• " Some Castillonnais are used for logging and packing food and equipment ..." - This wants rewording for clarification. Although the word "packhorse" is commonly used, my dictionary does not include "pack" as a verb with this meaning.

• Done, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Cwmhiraeth! I think I have addressed your comments above; if you see more that needs to be done or I haven't changed something to your satisfaction, please let me know. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that an article such as this that is partly derived from a Wikipedia article in another language should state this somewhere on the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• According to Template:Expand French (which is what was on the page when I started working on it), the tag, Template: Translated page should be placed on the talk page, which is where it currently resides. As far as I know, I don't think I've ever seen this tag (or another translation tag) used on the article itself. Dana boomer (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• You're probably right. I have seen it but am unsure about the matter and cannot find the relevant guidelines.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is acceptable
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with the MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references seem sufficient
	2b. 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).	No problem here
	2c. it contains no original research.	No
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It covers the main aspects adequately. The Castillonnais is a little known breed and the available information is also limited.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article has been expanded from a stud since the beginning of July and is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are 2 images and both are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Although short, I consider that this article passes all the criteria for Good Article status.

Are there additional problems, besides the issues listed above that I believe I have addressed? I see that all of the points in the checklist are marked with question marks... Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You were too quick off the mark! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! I didn't see that you had put up the table less than a hour before I made my comment. Thanks again for the review!! Dana boomer (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)