Talk:Horse rings in Portland, Oregon/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Rings were removed from sidewalks for safety purposes until the late-1970s, when one Portland resident complained about their disappearance. --> The disappearance of what? The rings or the person?

Done. Now reads: "They were removed from sidewalks for safety purposes until the late-1970s, when one Portland resident complained about the rings disappearing." --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Today the City of Portland helps to preserve the rings by requiring them to be replaced following sidewalk construction or repair. --> Today, the city of Portland helps to preserve the rings by requiring them to be replaced following sidewalk construction or repair.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Background and history

• Prior to the late-1970s, rings were unofficially removed during reconstruction or repair for safety purposes. --> What exactly does unofficially mean?

I went with the wording used in the source, but my interpretation is that there was no policy to remove the rings, but the rings were removed because they were no longer necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to remove the word "unofficially". I might just not be familiar with horse rings, but I don't believe that there would be an "official" way to remove them. Maybe "illegal" could work, but it isn't illegal, is it? Statυs (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Removed "unofficially". --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• In 1978, after one Portland resident complained about the disappearing rings, then City Commissioner Connie McCready announced that rings could be replaced at a homeowner's request, likely for a fee of $5. --> In 1978, after one Portland resident complained about the disappearance of rings, the Connie McCready, City Commissioner, announced that rings could be replaced at a homeowner's request, likely for a fee of $5.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk::::::) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? "the Connie McCready"? I've fixed this presumably inadvertent error in the article, also adding "a" to indicate something the reviewer might not know (given Portland's unusual form of city government): that McCready was one of several city commissioners, not Portland's (only) city commissioner. I'm not sure whether the title should be capitalized when not preceding the name, though. SJ Morg (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SJ. I did not read the sentence carefully enough when I made the insert. I was aware of the multi-commissioner system and think your wording is better at communicating that point. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Today the City of Portland is committed to preserving the horse rings, which are reinstalled following sidewalk construction or repair. --> Today, the city of Portland is committed to preserving the horse rings, which are reinstalled following sidewalk construction or repair.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Horse Project

• No need for quotation marks around Horse Project.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

References

• 2 access issues and 2 uncategorized redirects

Verdict

• All issues seem to have been addressed. Passing the article! Great work! Statυs (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.