Talk:Dandie Dinmont Terrier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Puffin (talk • contribs • count) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Why is the "Traits" drop down menu in the info box blank? Is it supposed to be there?~~ There were a few grammar and punctuation errors in the article, I fixed this for you.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	You should avoid peacock terms such as "popular" you use this in the article, maybe you could replace it or remove it all together. You also use the words "well known" which is also a peacock term. Also, avoid vague words like "various" You also use this in the article. The same with "several" and "a number of". They are all used in the article.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Is "He was a fly-fisher and enjoyed his sports" included in Cook (1885), maybe you could provide an inline citation for this, as it it likely to be challenged.~~ Your referencing is good, you have a range of reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	good
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	good
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	good
	7. Overall assessment.	yay Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, firstly thank you for conducting the review. Rather than add my responses in the table and risk wrecking the layout I'll simply put my responses down here. :) I've added the traits information to the infobox - I always tend to forget it when the empty fields aren't in the article. I've also added a direct citation following the fly fishing sentence, it was already cited a couple of sentences later, but if it's contentious then it deserves a direct cite. Miyagawa (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those points you raised, thanks for fixing those issues. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]