Talk:King Charles Spaniel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I made quite a few copyediting changes. Feel free to revert or question as you like, as always.
   • The FCI and ANKC links in the infobox are dead.

   • Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Inconsistency in capitalization between "Toy Spaniel" and "toy spaniel" throughout the article. When talking about a specific type (as I think is the case in most instances), it should be capitalized; when talking about a general type it should be sentence case.

   • I think I have it sorted now. When referring to the English Toy Spaniel, it's capitals, and when referring to a type of toy spaniel, it's lowercase - came up at FA Nom when I nominated Cocker Spaniel as it too referred to types of cocker spaniel and breeds called Cocker Spaniel. Miyagawa (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   • History, "These Italian Toy Spaniels may have been crossed between local small dogs such as the Maltese and imported Chinese dogs." Are you trying to say that they were crossed with the Maltese and Chinese dogs, or that they were the result of a cross between the Maltese and Chinese dogs?

   Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • History, "The Papillon is the continental descendant of these same types of toy-sized spaniels,[5] as it was not until the 19th century when the erect-ear style of the modern breed began to appear." I'm not understanding the connection between the first and second clauses of this sentence.

   • The modern Papillon has erect ears, however historically they were very similar to the King Charles Spaniel - reflecting on this I think the ear thing is going off topic for this article and so have removed the second half of the sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Charles II, "Toy spaniels became a favourite pet lap dog in Europe, with each family having its favourite." Repetition of "favourite".

   • Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Charles II, "She was known to own a small dog named Mike during the time of the English Civil War, but its breed is unknown." If we've already discussed her owning dogs that were probably small spaniels, then why is it important that she owned a single specifically named dog of unknown breeding during the war?

   • Fair enough, I've removed the line. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • 18th and 19th centuries, "around £1420 today" Should give the year instead of saying "today".

   • Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • 18th and 19th centuries, "the breed was becoming rarer." Which breed?

   • Clarified. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • 18th and 19th centuries, "The term was given" Which term?

   • Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • 18th and 19th centuries, "By the 1840s this term" Again, which term?

   • Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • 18th and 19th centuries. The paragraph beginning "The first written occurrence..." is a bit confusing. I see no relationship between the first and second sentences, and I have no idea why it is important when the first ruby-colored spaniel was seen.

   • Moved the paragraphs around a bit and put Queen Victoria and Otto von Bismarck together. The Ruby Spaniel is significant to show that it's younger than the other four types of English Toy Spaniel - although I can't find any origins for the Prince Charles type. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Conformation showing, "The American Kennel Club did not recognise the Cavalier until 1997." Were Cavaliers shown in the US before 1997? If so, in what category? Were they still considered "sub-par" King Charles Spaniels?

   • They would have been shown in breed only shows and perhaps sometimes in "any other breed" categories. I included further information about this in the final paragraph of Divergence from King Charles Spaniel over at Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. An interesting snippit that I didn't include in the article which was up during research was that when Ronald Reagan bought his wife a Cavalier, they weren't well enough know in the states so all the newspapers talk about it being a regular King Charles - but by the end of the term the breed was well enough known and it was referred to as a Cavalier. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Temperament, "not as useful as watchdogs as some breeds," Three "as"s in five words - any way to reword this? :)

   • Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Be careful of your plural/singular agreement within sentences - "The breed is...they are..." I think I got most of the spots, but just something to keep an eye out for.

   • Thanks, thats one of my recurrent bad habits. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Temperament, "although the King Charles still has the hunting instincts of its historic predecessors." I'm assuming this means that it may not be safe around rabbits, small cats, birds, etc., but this should probably be spelled out (although I have a rabbit that weighs almost as much as one of these dogs, so it might be rather funny to see that interaction!).

   • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Health, "distichia can be considered common". Can be or is?

   • Clarified. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, very nice. A few questions about prose and minor bits that could use some more fleshing out, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed those points you raised, if you have any further queries let me know. :) Thanks for reviewing. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work, and thanks for the quick response! Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)