Talk:Haflinger/GA1

GA Review

Lead

"The Haflinger is a breed of horse developed in Austria and northern Italy during the late 1800s." Developed or bred?

Comment I'm not the lead editor here, but where a breed of horse comes into existence, it is "developed." "Bred" refers to more immediate production of individual horses. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I thought developed sounded odd, but I'm not au fait with the correct parlance so it was merely a question. An the answer sounds fine. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting that I agree with Montana here. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The name comes from the village of Hafling." I would say where Hafling is.

Done - Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

"World War I" a bit Hollywood. First World War is better, although that page is at World War I, so I will leave it up to you. Consider wikilinking. Wikilinked. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We usually try to go with whatever wikipedia is naming articles linked. Also, "World War I" IS standard parlance...at least in the USA. So is this actually a problem per MOS and wiki guidelines or just an opinion on style? Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do most of my editing on English-based articles, and the correct name in England is First World War, etc, so again it was merely a query. Strictly it should be the correct Anglicised-name used in Italy/Austria I suppose. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like a UK vs. US English thing. Here we always say WWI and WWII (and not that it matters, but one of my undergrad degrees is in history, which I have taught as well...which makes me real good at Pub Trivia, but not otherwise remunerative, LOL!). I guess the guideline here is the old thing of whichever spelling/naming convention the article is started in is the one used. Will that work? Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a US vs. UK thing. I always say (and my history/gov't profs always said) WWI and WWII, rather than 1st and 2nd WW. The rest of the article has US spellings (or it should; if it doesn't it's because of a spelling error on my part), so I would say to stick with the US version of the wars. However, I'm probably biased because I basically wrote this whole article, and that's the way I like it :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine by me. Any problems with different English variations should either resort to the most appropriate one, or the variation first adopted. So US variations are fine. It may be worth noting on the talk page - there is a template somewhere, but I don't know where. Peanut4 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto World War II
"the breed was bred to produce shorter," the breed was bred sounds very clumsy.

Fixed (I hope) Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wikilink United States, but not Canada, Great Britain and Australia. Watch out for repeated wikilinks.

Mostly fixed Wikilinked nations the first time they showed up, deleted the second time they were used (when they WERE wikilinked, by the way! LOL!). Any mor excessively duplicated wikilinks that are still around?? Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was just a my bad. I think we've got them all fixed. Let me know if there's any that we missed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breed characteristics

"although they may be taller if all other characteristics are correct." What does this mean? What other characteristics? What makes them correct?

Clarified did a review of the breed standard. The point here was just to height, other characteristics are explained elsewhere in the paragraph. Hope this works. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded by both Montana and myself. Hope this works for you. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

"although they are also strong enough to carry adults, despite their small size." I would consider adding something about their small size in the breed characteristic section. How about comparision to other horses breeds?

Rephrased, hopefully this explains it better. (IMHO, to me a 15.2 horse is anything but "small" LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the cosmic scheme of horses in general, they are within the range of normal horses. However, in Europe, where the ideal is a big warmblood that stands almost a foot taller, there is a perception that smaller horses are ponies only suitable for children, which is not the case in general and especially not with the Haflingers, who are very sturdy. The lead editor will decide how she wants to edit this, but that's why it was worded the way it is.

I've no concerns about the wording. It just made me think there ought to be some mention of the breed's relative size in the characteristics section. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will see if a way to rephrase, Check on it in a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the Uses section has been reworded. Will it work how it is now? Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There are several national shows for Haflingers worldwide, including in Great Britain and the United States." Any reason to pick out GB and US?

Comment again, I'm not the lead editor here, but the Haflingers are known as a Central Europan breed of horse, so it's kind of a big deal to see them elsewhere, if that makes sense. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But GB and US sounds very biased. Do they have them in other areas outside Central Europe? Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dunno, that's going to have to be one Dana looks into. (smile) Looks like USA and GB are all we can find sources for. Will do a little digging. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: Found a link to German championships and added it. Also found a link to the European Haflinger Championships, but it's all in German and hence I don't think we can use that on English wiki (?) But if anyone cares, it's here Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any foreign language references just need the appropriate language tag, e.g. {{de icon}}. Peanut4 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was basically because I couldn't find anything on Haflinger-centric shows in other areas of the world. If they have them, they're not mentioned in my books or any of the websites I found. Haflingers of course are allowed in other shows around the world...there just aren't that many countries that have huge national shows just for Haflingers. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I would be tempted to crop the third of the images in order to remove the shine from the sun in the top corner. However, don't worry about getting this done for the GA process. It's more an observation.

We've added another image, moved stuff around, and removed the one at the bottom. Is it OK now? Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General

Numerals and units should be broken by non-breaking spaces. I've done one for you. For more info see WP:MOSNUM.

I think I got them all. Let me know if there's any missing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted only two more, so I'll catch them myself. Peanut4 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to do, but nothing substantial, so I will put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick reflection, there's two more points I ought to bring up.

"The breed is also called the Avelignese, from the Italian word for Hafling, which is Aveligna or Avelengo." This is in the lead, but I can't see any reference in the many body of the article.

Moved info down to bottom of Breed Characteristics section, with brief mention in the lede. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of external links. Are they all necessary? See WP:EL for more details.Peanut4 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two (one was already in the refs and the other was a personal website). The others are all to national or international breed associations, which is the norm for horse articles. Does this work for you? Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final point

Everything looks good already. Well done. One final point is that I think the lead now needs to be a bit longer. WP:LEAD suggests one or two pars for an article of less than 15,000 bytes, which this is. Strictly it passes that criteria. Are you happy with the size of the lead, or do you think it needs expanding. There's nothing that stands out as obviously missing from the lead - the main suggestion I would have is purebreed and ancestry. Peanut4 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a bit by adding some stuff on ancestry and the breed organizations. It's still one paragraph, but it's definitely longer now. I'm happy with where it stands now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything done. Nice job. Well done. The main suggestion I would make about any improvements is to explain the height, and its comparative height to other breeds, and perhaps an image to demonstrate this to common, everyday breeds. But everything else looks great.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Peanut4 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]