Talk:Moustache (dog)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —focus 03:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article; I'll try to have comments up in a few days.—focus 03:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC) A few first impression comments before I get into the prose a bit deeper:[reply]

It's a bit hard to figure out what the infobox image is showing at a glance. If there aren't any other suitable images, have you considered cropping it so that the dog can be clearly seen on the article page? Just a suggestion; might not be the best option.
Why is the first section 'historical background'? That gives the impression that it will explain the historical background of the time period (a section which, by the way, is probably necessary to have). Also, 'historical sources' is lacking inline citations.
IMO, stating that you primarily use certain sources could be considered a bit POV — you're supposed to try to have fair representation of the most notable sources or opinions. If there's already consensus regarding this that's fine, but otherwise you may want to rethink the way you use the various historical accounts.

Hi, thanks for agreeing to review.

Image: That is the only image I am aware of for the subject. It could possibly be cropped to show just the dog but I think it is valuable to have the whole scene. I have moved it to the main article body so that it can be displayed a little larger.

1st section: I included that section so I could explain the nature of the sources available. It is possibly verging on editorialising but I thought it should be mentioned that because there are no contemporary sources (all are at least 20 years after the events) there could be some elaboration and fictionalisation. I do not think it POV to state that I am using two main sources. I chose the two main ones as they were the most coherent, I have noted where other sources disagree. I should note that I don't have access to the sources listed in the second note (they came from another source).

If there is anything you would like me to do please let me know. I am not available for the next week but should be able to make any changes next weekend. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you retitle that section? I really think that 'Historical Background' gives the wrong impression. Maybe 'sources' or 'historical sources' would be better. —focus 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to why you put the other books in a footnote. It seems to me that they would be better in the references section, perhaps under "further reading" or "other accounts".

I agree with both your suggestions and have altered the article accordingly. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't replied to this review; it just had slipped my mind. I'm going to pass it has a GA because I can't find anything that prevents it from meeting the criteria. Great work on a unusual topic!. —focus 05:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]