Exmoor pony has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 7, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Exmoor pony appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
|
|
Apologies for taking a couple of days to get to this:
Overall it looks pretty good. I've made a few minor tweaks, but nothing major. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Beginning to work on this for buffing to GA status (which should be fairly easy, given all the work that has been put into it). A lot of the above comments are still outstanding, so I'll be striking them as I work on them. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a very strong feeling that this is not a formal, selectively bred breed, recognized by any fancier/breeder organization, but is in fact simply a landrace. All the facts in the article seem to support this. If so, this article has to be rewritten and recategorized to stop making the unverifiable and blatant original-research claim that it is a breed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Why was this article moved? Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical. I think the new title fails WP:AT, because "Exmoor (pony)" is not actually used by sources and it's an implausible search term. bobrayner ( talk) 09:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Put in the move back request: Talk:Dartmoor_(pony)#Requested_move
The article says "Exmoor fanciers claim the breed is descended from wild ancestors and has been bred pure since the Ice Age, and thus is more than 100,000 years old", but the last ice age was only 10,000 years ago, not 100,000 years. George Ponderevo ( talk) 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Just lurking on the work being done on this article. Too bad ThatPeskyCommoner is not active on WP any more, she really knows her stuff; may ant to email her for a PR; I think the email link is still active and she didn't quit in disgust or anything, RL stuff bit into her WP time. Also, her History of the horse in Britain and FA-class New Forest pony may have good source material. ( talk page stalker) Montanabw (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just looked at this article for the first time in ages (following its GA nom) and it has greatly improved, however I did notice that twice in the lead it says "there are estimated to be around 800 Exmoor ponies in existence" in the 1st para & "As of 2010 there were an estimated 800 Exmoor ponies worldwide." in the third. Is this deliberate?— Rod talk 13:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In the section on Recorded history and modern times it says 400 ponies were taken to Winsford in 1818; however the Richard Acland linked was born in 1906. This looks as if it has been copied from the main Exmoor article & reproduced the error (which seems to have been copied onto lots of web sites). There are a whole bunch of Acland baronets but I suspect it should be Thomas Acland but don't have the source used as a reference to check. This site says it was Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, 11th Baronet and was 30 ponies not 400 and this site says it was 20.— Rod talk 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The current ref 2 to the Breed Standard includes a publication date of 2102. Having looked at the web page referenced I would assume this should be 2012 but there isn't a date on it apart from copyright 2014. Are there particular dates when Breed Standards are published (perhaps in a book as well as the web site)?— Rod talk 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"The legs are short, with clean bone", as opposed to dirty bone? Needs rephrasing or explanation for non-specialists. Tigerboy1966 07:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Exmoor pony has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 7, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Exmoor pony appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
|
|
Apologies for taking a couple of days to get to this:
Overall it looks pretty good. I've made a few minor tweaks, but nothing major. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Beginning to work on this for buffing to GA status (which should be fairly easy, given all the work that has been put into it). A lot of the above comments are still outstanding, so I'll be striking them as I work on them. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a very strong feeling that this is not a formal, selectively bred breed, recognized by any fancier/breeder organization, but is in fact simply a landrace. All the facts in the article seem to support this. If so, this article has to be rewritten and recategorized to stop making the unverifiable and blatant original-research claim that it is a breed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Why was this article moved? Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical. I think the new title fails WP:AT, because "Exmoor (pony)" is not actually used by sources and it's an implausible search term. bobrayner ( talk) 09:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Put in the move back request: Talk:Dartmoor_(pony)#Requested_move
The article says "Exmoor fanciers claim the breed is descended from wild ancestors and has been bred pure since the Ice Age, and thus is more than 100,000 years old", but the last ice age was only 10,000 years ago, not 100,000 years. George Ponderevo ( talk) 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Just lurking on the work being done on this article. Too bad ThatPeskyCommoner is not active on WP any more, she really knows her stuff; may ant to email her for a PR; I think the email link is still active and she didn't quit in disgust or anything, RL stuff bit into her WP time. Also, her History of the horse in Britain and FA-class New Forest pony may have good source material. ( talk page stalker) Montanabw (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just looked at this article for the first time in ages (following its GA nom) and it has greatly improved, however I did notice that twice in the lead it says "there are estimated to be around 800 Exmoor ponies in existence" in the 1st para & "As of 2010 there were an estimated 800 Exmoor ponies worldwide." in the third. Is this deliberate?— Rod talk 13:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In the section on Recorded history and modern times it says 400 ponies were taken to Winsford in 1818; however the Richard Acland linked was born in 1906. This looks as if it has been copied from the main Exmoor article & reproduced the error (which seems to have been copied onto lots of web sites). There are a whole bunch of Acland baronets but I suspect it should be Thomas Acland but don't have the source used as a reference to check. This site says it was Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, 11th Baronet and was 30 ponies not 400 and this site says it was 20.— Rod talk 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The current ref 2 to the Breed Standard includes a publication date of 2102. Having looked at the web page referenced I would assume this should be 2012 but there isn't a date on it apart from copyright 2014. Are there particular dates when Breed Standards are published (perhaps in a book as well as the web site)?— Rod talk 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"The legs are short, with clean bone", as opposed to dirty bone? Needs rephrasing or explanation for non-specialists. Tigerboy1966 07:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)