Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hare coursing

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [1].

Hare coursing

edit

Self-nomination: I've been working on this for a while, was delighted that the Good Article review process was able to prompt improvements in the article. I now have more time on my hands, and hope to work with comments made to ensure that the article can be assessed at/helped to reach FA standard. MikeHobday (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references are broken ({{cite web|url=http://www.lurecoursing.org.uk/lurecoursing/index.html|title=Lure Coursing Explained|publisher=British Sighthound Field Association|date=2008|accessdate=2008-04-12)))
  • Format the dates in the references, so "2008-02-10" becomes "2008-02-10" and "2000-2" (which hardly anyone reads like that) becomes "February 2000".
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
  • Some references are placed incorrectly, such as "coursing [25] where", which has an extra space before it; remove extra space. Also, "coursing' [25]," – the reference goes after punctuation. This is all per WP:FOOTNOTE. Ensure the other references are placed properly because several are not.

Gary King (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tried to do these, though I'm not really expert on the dashes. MikeHobday (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epbr123 has very kindly done the dashes, hope that's OK now. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"2000-2" →" "February 2000" in the references, too. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, now done. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if I've missed anything else. I find a fresh eye is often best placed to spot such things. MikeHobday (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Starts out awkward: "Hare coursing is the coursing of hares" - I Palindrome I?
  • Perhaps a little more context in the opening, to explain exactly what it is without turning to the links
  • Lead also needs another paragraph, to fulfill the requirements. Maybe something about its history, and then transition to the sport today?

Interesting read, I'll continue to add more comments as I see them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to cover this, could you look to see how the new version looks? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. I tried to clean up the second paragraph a little, make sure it is still accurate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your website references, a large number of them are missing publishers. They give authors, but no publishers.
I think I've now put publishers for everything. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One dead link is showing up on the link checker tool. Another says it's timing out.
All bar one addressed, not sure if that is a temporary or permanent issue. MikeHobday (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on these? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link was dead yesterday and today, so I planned to check Monday just in case it has gone down for the weekend. I've asked [2] the User who found the link for suggestions, but I anticipate having to remove the reference on Monday. MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Cattus, who has found a new location for the law, I have removed the dead link. MikeHobday (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. MikeHobday (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arrian ref, is lacking either a page number or a book/paragraph reference.
Removed as duplicate, and mentionned in references, as classic book. MikeHobday (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reinserted with page number. MikeHobday (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - duplicate source in any event. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're linking to a lot of books that are previews on Google Books. Unfortunately, they often don't link to the page you want, due to the vagaries of the preview system. (At least twice this happened checking out refs on this article) Page numbers would be nice. Also, I worry about using google books as a reference like that, because you're not usually getting the full book, so it's hard to be sure you're getting the full nuances of the author's writing.
I see that the use of "cite web" and the google book links causes the page number in the reference to be lost. I seem to have a choice between having the link and showing the page number in the article. Can yoiu advise me on the better practice? MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just giving a convience link for the reader? I.e. are you using a hard copy book? If you are, you can use the {{cite book}} template and use the url field to give the link to the book page as well as use the page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, I was using google books as the source when trying to do a wide search for relevant information. I did, of course, read the relevant chapters thoroughly to be sure that I was not providing a misleading account. Accordingly, I've used the {{cite book}} template. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works. Although I gotta admit I hate the "use Google books" option, at least you read the whole chapter. Too many people just do a search on a phrase and don't read beyond the highlights. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is a highly reputable and independent organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a dog breeding organization be a better source though?
I'm sure you're right, but breeding organisations, like The Kennel Club for example, do not recognise cross-breeds. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 18 Mirriam O'Reilly - is this a TV show? Does it have a title? Also, should be author last name first to fit with the rest of the footnotes.
Surprisingly, no. It's just called Countryfile every week. Changed name format. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was used twice, one now replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't answer why it's reliable for the one time it's being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't claiming it was but (perhaps unnecesarilly) reporting work in progress. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More reliable source found for key information, the extra detail in the Gulf Coast Greyhounds source, is now described as a claim, but could be removed if you think that exagerates its reliability. MikeHobday (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've been pretty busy this week with a horse show (which is finishing up thankfully) so I've been double checking everything. Looks fine.
Amended to refer to as a claim rather than a fact. Regrettably, hare coursing is not subject to that many scientific articles, and I hope that you feel that relevant claims can be cited as such. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Have you done any looking on JSTOR for articles that might have been published? While there may not be scientific, there might be historical ones. Also look at http://www.nsl.org/, they may have some information online. (It's a GREAT library, although a bit out of the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've used several (I have Athens access to many databases of journals, including Science Direct, Jstor and Ingenta. I hadn't been aware of nsl, and its online catalog seems down for now, but I'll try again later. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know in some of my research I've run across articles about hunting in the middle ages, as well as some tangential bits about other hunting styles from work on Thoroughbreds. These might be helpful Book, Journal article in pdf with bibliographical entry, JSTOR article, another book, JSTOR article, pdf article, JSTOR article, Another JSTOR article, article about Salukis. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good sources, I've added some info. MikeHobday (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.animalplace.org/blood.html this site (current ref 28) it seems disjointed, I'm not sure exactly what they are against, it's not made plain on the site. Also, what makes them reliable?
Was used twice, first as referencing its own opinion which seems valid. Second use replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always reliable for their own opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Scooby references replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with reputable international organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does HMSO stand for?
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, have wikilinked. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Some of us are colonials...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Links (except mentions above) checked out okay. I wasn't able to evaluate the foreign language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, started on these, will continue over the weekend. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kelly hi! 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg is non-free and has some problems. It seems to be used in a decorative way in the article. The text of the article doesn't discuss this poster at all. The image description say the purpose of this is to demonstrate coursing by muzzled greyhounds - since this type of coursing still takes place today, the image is replaceable in this role per WP:NFCC#1. There is a brief explanation that it would be difficult to replace this image - I'm afraid this isn't normally accepted at Wikipedia as a reason except in exceptional circumstances. After all, the League Against Cruel Sports was able to obtain a photo; we should be able to as well. (Perhaps we can get a photo from them?)
  • Image:Hare5.jpg claims a public domain release by the League Against Cruel Sports, but there's no evidence of the release (i.e. an OTRS ticket or a link to a copyleft statement).
The use is not intended to be decorative, but to do what the caption says. Regrettably, just because an activity takes place, does not mean that its organisers permit photography. In fact, they do not. I would dearly have loved a straight forward photo, but these are just not available. Hence I hope that the use of the leaflet image is considered exceptional here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, the evidence is that, for seven years from 2001 to 2007, I was verifiably a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports([3] and hence able to authorise public domain release. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the leaflet image, I'm sorry, but the objection stands. I guess the obvious question I would ask would be how the LACS obtained a photo if it was unobtainable. On the second image, are you the copyright holder? Kelly hi! 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for making this point in two places, but I thought I should reply here as well as on the image deletion page you proposed. With regard to Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg, you are regrettably unduly optimistic in suggesting that a free image is available. As I said above, the organisers of hare coursing events do not generally permit photography. The background to this image is this: that the League Against Cruel Sports purchased a commercial image with permission to use it on a leaflet. and then distributed the leaflet. They did not buy general use rights for the image and therefore cannot release the image. The leaflet they produced, however, is in the public domain and is therefore, I believe, exceptionally able to be used here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, could I apologise again for not being clearer above. I was, for seven years, a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports (evidence above) and therefore able to release permission on behalf of the organisation. I no longer work for them, and can no longer be considered as the copyright holder. See also the deletion page for that image. MikeHobday (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission for Hare5 confirmed [4]. MikeHobday (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am conscious of the overlap of this FA candidacy and the IFD on this image. Given the backlog in processing IFDs, it is likely that User:SandyGeorgia will have to make a decision on the FA promotion before the IFD has been closed. I therefore have a suggestion to make: that the image is removed from the article now, to allow it to proceed to FA, and reinserted if and only if the image passes IFD. What do you think? Would that be acceptable? MikeHobday (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great suggestion to me. Kelly hi! 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done accordingly. MikeHobday (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure the statement "commoners with lurchers" makes sense in the UK, or parts of it perhaps, but on this side of the pond it is utterly baffling. I kind of understand the concept of a commoner, but I don't understand why they wouldn't have Greyhounds and I have absolutely no idea what a "lurcher" might be. Please fix! Maury (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have wikilinked lurcher and removed "commoner". I agree that the latter sounds archaic, even in a historical reference. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, the link helped and I expanded it slightly. Maury (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, that looks an improvement. MikeHobday (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I entirely agree with Kelly's image concerns.
    • Regarding the leaflet: NFCC#1 does not, for better or worse, recognize "ethics" (i.e. adhering to "no photography allowed"). For example, photography in barracks buildings (i.e. museum sections) at Auschwitz is not allowed, yet we have still acquired images. Indeed, if muzzled coursing is still practiced, an image could be obtained. Again, there is no consideration of ease or a prohibition of subterfuge. Although now moot, NFCC#3B also requires minimal extent of use. If the purpose is to illustrate muzzled coursing, why is the entirety of the poster being used? Doing so is problematic, as, for example, the non-free logo in the lower left corner could be cropped out without harming the image's ability to fulfill its intended function.
    • Regarding Hare5: Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. If the entity from which LACS purchased the image has permitted LACS to release it into the public domain, we will need proof of that. Additionally, although you may have been an employee and/or director of LACS, that does not necessarily mean you have/had authority from LACS to release its images. We will need to verify that either a) the author has released the image to PD or b) the author has released rights to LACS and you have authority to speak for and license of behalf of LACS. An OTRS ticket would likely be needed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the leaflet, I would be happy to crop the image if that would help. I considered this before, but was concerned that this might violate the conditions for display, on the fair use template on the image page. It's not the ethics that concern me, so much as the practicality of getting a camera past security and whipping it out at the right moment. That may be easier in a museum than at a sporting event where all the rest of the audience might watch out for cameras.
With regard to Hare5, can I confirm what you need? You're saying that you need an email from the original photographer (in this case, a League contractor), and that the League's posession and historic use of that image is neither here nor there? Or do you want an email from the photographer confirming that the League has the copyright and one from the League confirming release? Should these be separate emails, or should the photographer email the League to pass on his email to Wikipedia? Genuinely, I ask just to get this right.
MikeHobday (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission for Hare5 confirmed [5]. MikeHobday (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NI coursing Leaflet removed as discussed under Kelly, above. MikeHobday (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have no respect for IfD, image concerns have been addressed for the time being. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content is well referenced and the prose looks good, but I have concerns about the balance of the article. While bloodsports are controversial and substantial coverage of controversy is to be expected, the proportion of the article devoted to controversy and legal status is perhaps excessive when compared to the brief History section. We are told that hare coursing peaked in the 1800s, but are given no further detail. Conversely, phrases such as Hare coursing in the Republic of Ireland is opposed by the Irish Council Against Bloodsports could be trimmed; this particular example has a certain "turkeys oppose Christmas" feel to it. I think the article would definitely benefit from some application of summary style. Some more specific individual points: — Oldelpaso 18:43, 17 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
The Irish Council Against Bloodsports reference seemed repetituous and I have removed it. At a quick measurement, the controversy section occupies a quarter of the article. While the history section could be expanded (and I will review this), I suggest the balance is probably OK. Hare coursing is currently illegal in three of the eight legislative countries in which it has taken place in recent years, and such debates inevitably suggest to me that this is the issue that will interest and draw readers to the article. In contrast, the history, while certainly important, is more likely to be of interest to a smaller group of readers. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some history, particularly addressing the 1800s as you suggest, so would welcome any suggestions you had as to other historical aspects that might be included. In the meantime, I'll continue to research. Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • first complete set of English rules was drawn up in the reign of Elizabeth I by Thomas Duke of Norfolk - what were the main features of these rules?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Informal coursing is nearly always poaching... ...Informal coursing sometimes does have the landowner's permission - "nearly always" and "sometimes" do not gel here. "sometimes" could go with "usually", or "nearly always" with "occasionally" though.
Agree, and amended. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By 2003, the UK coursing season ran from 1 October to 28 February. Implies that this is a change. Is the intention to show that hare coursing is a winter pursuit?
There was an explicit reference to change which was removed during the GA review as it was frankly marginal. The real implication is that there had been changes, but this was the position at the time when coursing was banned. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have reviewed again. I agree with your criticism here, and have amended accordingly. MikeHobday (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful when using the word "claim" and suchlike.
Good point, have reviewed. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a direct quote, so "hindleg" seems appropriate. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support In retrospect that little bit of editing in the intro was the only thing I found even remotely troublesome, minor thought it was. And even that's been addressed. Maury (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do have one suggestion (and I'm not withdrawing support!). Would it be ok to move the Conservation/Pest control section down? It seems to me that the controversy and legislation sections should be placed closer together, as they seem very much related. Perhaps it should even be a subsection? Maury (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Actually, I'm agnostic on this point, but my very slight inclination is not to do so on the basis that the conservation issue, while debated over, is not the centre of controversy and User:Oldelpaso rightly cautions against over-emphasis on controversial aspects of the article. MikeHobday (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did the GA review. The article has been substantially strengthened since then, and this process of improvement has seemingly continued during this FAC. I would simply draw Mike's attention to a couple of minor points:-

  • Greyhounds with a capital G in the first line, but lower case later in the lead. Suggest drop the capital, and in Greyhound racing.
  • The Francis Barlow image is left-aligned under a subsection heading, which contravenes wiki policy. It also displaces the next subheading.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note policy on capitals is unclear, but happy to follow advice. MikeHobday (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Interesting article, but needs more work

  • History, Formal coursing: Comma after The Master of Game, which will place punctuation after a footnote.
  • Second sentence, second paragraph of section has a ton of commas. Can this be broken up in some fashion?
  • Description of formal hare coursing: It's weird that there are references for some breeds but not others. Was this contentious at some point?
  • Comma after walked-up coursing.
  • "The UK coursing season ran from 1 October to 28 February" was mentioned earlier. My problem is that I think the year should be given, in the form of "The 2003 UK coursing season". It's currently unclear what year is being referred to.
  • Variations in Irish coursing: Extra space in "10,000 spectators".
  • Last sentence of third section paragraph: Either remove the comma or add another after "freedom of information legislation".
  • Variations in the United States: Current ref 27 not after punctuation. There are a few other occurances in the article, but I understand it in those cases; however this one should be fixed.
  • "including California, Montana and Wyoming." Change period to a comma.
  • "The leading United States coursing body, the National Open Field Coursing Association, lists 480 dogs of various breeds as being registered with it and 83 events taking place in the 2006-07 coursing season." "with it and 83 events" doesn't read well. Giants2008 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. MikeHobday (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other countries: "Coursing in Spain has a long history, using Spanish galgos, but have a precarious life after their coursing careers, with the World Society for the Protection of Animals suggesting that many tens of thousands die cruelly each year." I don't know what the last part is trying to say. although I think it refers to the animals. Badly in need of revamping.
  • Next paragraph is one sentence. Is there a reason this can't be merged with the preceding paragraph?
  • Controversy, Welfare arguments: "Until more recently" should have a time period give because this may not age well without one.
  • Add an abbreviation after Universities Federation for Animal Welfare to avoid any confusion.
  • Two Burns Inquiry links in section.
  • "The Burns Inquiry, set up by the Government" This should be "UK Government", matching the earlier usage. Again this would help avoid confusion.
  • Welfare arguments in Irish style coursing: Another Burns Inquiry link.
  • Two one-sentence paragraphs in a row. The first can be improved by turning the semi-colon into a period. The second is stubby and will require more thought.
  • The kill: Another one-sentence paragraph here. This one caught my interest. It makes me wonder how many people like seeing hares killed. Are there any polls on this? If so, this would be a good addition.
  • Conservation/Pest control: This title violates the Manual of Style. Slashes should not be in section titles, and only proper nouns are capitalized after the first word. I'm thinking Conservation and pest control would work.
  • "high densities of hare are considered as agricultural pests" I don't like the flow of this. It reads like the densities are the problem, not the hares. Hares in high numbers is the point this is trying to make, so write it that way. Giants2008 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good points. I have covered all these, but note: no polls on enjoying kills (hard to imagine how this could be done reliably); Conservation and pest control are, in a sense, opposites, so I have suggested "or" to highlight contrast. MikeHobday (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • California Dept. of Agriculture should be fully named and linked.
  • Debate and legislation, In the UK: Problem sentence: "and the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson joined in the criticism of coursing." Not sure if first the is necessary. Hyphen after then. Coursing is the word before this starts, so I would end this with "joined in the criticism."
  • "in 1969 and in 1975".
  • "but neither law passed the House of Lords to become law. Redundant use of law.
  • Comma after Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act.
  • In Northern Ireland: Second paragraph is one sentence. Merge or expand that baby.
  • "from both urban and rural residents of both Northern Ireland and the Republic." Not liking either use of both here, since they are not needed. The writing would be cleaner without them.
  • In California: The California Assembly bill sentence is quite long. I suggest breaking it up by their definition of coursing.
That's all from me. Giants2008 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Included one both on NI and hyphenated California sentence, but others as sugested. MikeHobday (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this meets FA standards now. The writing is quite a bit better than when I first came here. Giants2008 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, many minor glitches when I ran through, see edit summaries, consider asking User:Epbr123 to do a complete runthrough (I see he earlier got only some issues with AWB). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hare_coursing&oldid=1138462324"