Talk:Breton horse

GA Review

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Breton (horse)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've made these initial edits, please check
• Article title - why Breton (horse) and not Breton horse (or Breton Horse)?
  • Because the breed name is "Breton" and the "(horse)" is simply a disambiguator from the Breton article. The breed name is not "Breton horse", and so the article shouldn't be titled as such. "Breton Horse" is improper capitalization, since the breed's name is not "Breton horse". Horse breed articles have not yet been standardized, so you can find examples all over the board, but for new articles being created, the above is basically the unwritted rule, and at some point we'll get around to standardizing the rest.
• Images are appropriate and correctly licensed.
• References are OK, but repeated refs to same book look odd. Why not do notes and references style (see Ruff) with Edwards in the "References" and entries like Edwards (1994) pp. 266-267 in the "Notes"? Up to you though
  • I mainly did this because there were so few references...it didn't seem like it would make it any more clear to split them up. I would prefer to leave them as is.
• In the Lead, "breed" is a bit overworked, and section seems odd, why not "district"?
  • Removed a couple instances of "breed". Replaced "section" with "area".
• Characteristics - first sentence begins with The, second with They - I'd stick with singular throughout
  • Fixed.
• Explanation of feathered in this context would be good, as a non-rider I envisaged actual bird-type feathers, which I'm sure can't be right
  • Wikilinked.
• Sub-Categories - should this be Subcategories? Why is the "C" capitalised anyway? What's the difference, if any between subtype and subcategory. What is the type and/or category these are subs of - I assume the breed?
  • Section named fixed. Made it explicit that subtype and subcategory are the same thing. They are subcategories of the breed.
• is derived from crossbreeding with the Arabian and Thoroughbred. crossbreeding of what? Is this referring to an ancestral form, if so please make explicit
  • Native stock. Made explicit.
• Breton Mountains I can't find any evidence that this is a synonym for Monts d'Arrée. Even if it should be Breton mountains, Monts d'Arrée is only one of the hilly areas in Brittany, so again not a synonym.
  • Removed wikilink.
• Considering that French has only relatively recently become the majority language in Brittany, I wonder if there are any Breton names for this breed.
  • I didn't come across any other names for the breed in my research, except for those nicknames and sub-type names already in the article. I think I conducted a fairly thorough survey of the available info on the breed - it's fairly rare and there's not much out there.
• It is bred in the northern coastal area of Brittany (Leon) Does Leon still exist?
  • Sort of. It's a small villiage near Merléac, which I linked.
• The Breton had a significant influence on the Canadian Horse, after they...
  • Fixed.
• They are also bred for meat production. - better it is for consistency. Can this be expanded a little? Not all readers will be aware of the chevaline tradition, it's not bad, but I prefer venison myself.
  • Fixed grammar, added bit on horse meat in Europe. I've never tried horse meat, and as a certified American horse-as-a-pet-and-companion person, I don't really have any wish to do so...

Done for now, kenavo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed all of the issues above. Please let me know if there is further work to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:  

   Pass/Fail:

I'm afraid I was being a bit naughty with the horse meat comment, since I hardly expected you to be an enthusiast for hippophagy, and I apologise for that. I was surprised to read in that article that horse meat is actually illegal in the US. Although I've never seen it for sale in the UK (we don't on the whole share our continental cousins' tastes in this instance), I don't think it's actually forbidden. Any way, well done on another breed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No harm done, I wasn't offended. Rather simply saying that I would have to be very hungry before I'd try it, although what other people wish to eat is their business, and from what I hear, horse is actually fairly edible! Thanks for the GA :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)