# Talk:Wizard (horse)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wizard (horse)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 10:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks as if it might be the type of article I can review. I will work on it over the next few days but be patient with me as I'm not very experienced at GA reviews yet. I usually ask a more experienced reviewer to have a quick peek over my shoulder as I get towards the end of the review just to be on the safe side. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
'his Derby conqueror' doesn't feel quite right to me but maybe I'm showing my ignorance and it is terminology commonly used?
'Salivator' finishes one sentence and then starts the next in the second paragraph of 1809 season, which feels a bit clunky to me, so may be worth considering re-jigging a little?
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Both are US PD
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Thanks, I've reworded the sentence with Salivator in and change 'Derby conqueror' to 'Derby winner'. Edwarddutton (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Requested outside comment here: I agree with Phil's assessments above. The only side note I'd offer is that this article appears a bit marginal for notability; glancing through a number of the sources, only #21 has the in-depth discussion of the subject to count toward notability by the GNG. But I haven't checked them all, and in any case, notability's explicitly not an issue for the GA criteria. Anyway, from what I see, this has no obvious issues and I'd say it's likely to end up as a pass. Thanks again for all your work on these, Edward! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for all your help and understanding with this. Everything now has a green check mark! SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)