The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured article because it appears to have met FA criteria. Yohmom ( talk) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I've helped a bit with finding sources in the past. Also, this [2] source is by a noted equine writer and vet, so it qualifies under the SPS guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Tech. review from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Oppose: This is a regretful oppose, because I enjoyed the article when I read it at peer review, ansd saw little wrong with it. However I, and another reviewer, both commented that the lead did not summarise the whole article, as required by FA criterion 2(a). These comments are merely marked in the review "not done", with no explanation of the decision to ignore them. Since the lead at present clearly does not summarise the whole article, I feel I have no choice but to register an oppose.
Brianboulton (
talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Image review - All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit ( talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply