Talk:Dølehest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know slightly more about horses after that last GA review, so let's keep improving my knowledge! Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Prose

Just some minor comments – I made a few minor changes, fixed dashes using a helpful script and found a category to add, so the remaining points are:

• stud book or studbook? You use both

  I fixed that. Used one word, but two words is equally correct. But they are all the same now, at least-- MTBW

• Last sentence of the lead: can we avoid "breeds to breed"?

  Fixed --MTBW

• "Clean" x-rays? (I think I know what you mean, i.e. clear of defects, but I'm not sure if "clean" is the best word here.)

• Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Mazarin was an Arabian imported to Norway in 1934." Seems a little out of place, since you've mentioned him a few sentences ago, then moved on to discuss other stallions, then come back to him.

• I've moved this around a bit. Mazarin and Odin were the two most important stallions in the history of the type, and so it is important to discuss them together, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "During the same period, a stallion named Brimen 825..." which period, 1840 to 1860, or around 1934?

• The source actually doesn't say. I've removed "during the same period", as I can't find a source that says when he was bred, used, anything... Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your OSU source says "The difference between the two types has been greatly reduced in recent years due to interbreeding between the types", but I don't really see that pointed out in the article, unless I'm missing something - you mention interbreeding, but not the effect.

• Added a bit to the characteristics section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

One, appropriate and correctly licensed

Sources

Appropriate, reliable, well-used. No detectable inappropriate usage, no signs of original research or bias

Focus and other factors

Sufficiently broad and detailed. Article is stable. No dablinks, and external links are all functioning correctly.

So, on hold for the traditional period to address or dispute these points. Bencherlite^Talk 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for another review, Bencherlite! I think that between the two of us, Montana and I have managed to address your comments. Please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed. Passed. Bencherlite^Talk 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)