Talk:Blue Picardy Spaniel/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Axl in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am in the process of reviewing this "Good article" candidacy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As well as the GA criteria, I am also comparing the article with similar ones. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Cavalier King Charles Spaniel" & "English Cocker Spaniel" have "History" sections towards the end of the articles. "Labrador Retriever" & "German Shepherd Dog" have "History" at the start. Shouldn't this be standardized? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it's a guideline so that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "Health" section is too brief. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • This will be the main issue with this article as there simply isn't that much information available. The breed is recognised by neither the UK Kennel Club nor the American Kennel Club so there just hasn't been any research made. Miyagawa (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

From "Appearance", paragraph 2: "Its chest is of medium depth with well sprung ribs that descend down to the same level as the elbows." What is the meaning of "medium depth" in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Just re-edited that line, on double checking it I found that I had managed to copy edit the information from the Sarah's Dogs website back to much nearer the original line that was stated on the breed standard. Removed well sprung as that sort of thing is more aspirational in the standard that a common description of the breed. As for the medium depth, it literally means the circumference of the chest cavity of the dog compared to the size of the dog. Miyagawa (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for fixing that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should the word "spaniel" (unqualified) be capitalized? The lead has lowercase while the "History" section has uppercase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Summary

edit

This article is nicely written. I have made a few adjustments to grammar & syntax. The text is accurate and well-referenced. It is neutral, stable and appropriately illustrated.

However I am concerned by the relative lack of detailed information. It does not compare favourably with the analogous articles that I mentioned above. On the other hand, our guideline states "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail."

The article (as it stands) just about makes it to this minimum standard. Therefore I am awarding "GA" status. Nonetheless, I hope that editors, especially Miyagawa who has already worked hard on this article, continue to increase and improve the content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply