Talk:Poodle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii, sorry for the wait. I'll try to get through this review asap. Some initial comments below:

GA Criteria:

1. Well written

• Lead - should probably be a bit longer to summarize the major aspects of the article. Currently you only summarize some material from History and Size Variants.

Tried to address this, not entirely happy with the lead as it stands but it hits at least briefly on each of the sections.

• Lead - "..although it is also claimed to be from France." - claimed by whom?
• History - "... and the dog they refer to..." - this sentence reads oddly. Does "they" refer to "A majority of cynologists"? If so, maybe you could just say "Most cynologists believe the modern Standard Poodle originated in Germany."
• History - "It is claimed..." - typically a phrase to avoid since it's unclear (by whom? Someone knowledgeable on the topic? See WP:Weasel words). Also, maybe instead you could add the bit about the Middle Ages to the previous sentence ("...originated in Germany, where it has been bred since the Middle Ages.")
• History - "indisputably Germanic" (suggest removing "indisputably", as it's unneeded)
• History - "Additionally, there exists..." Avoid "there exists" when possible, it's typically a meaningless phrase. Consider instead "Numerous works by German artists as early as the 17th century..."
• Size variants - "obedient natures"
• Size variants - "It was in French circuses that the breed..."
• Size variants - "One of the reasons for creating this fourth size variety is believed to be a desire to reduce the number of entries of Poodles by variety at conformation shows." I'm not sure I understand. Why would a fourth variety reduce the number of entries? Also "is believed to be" could you clarify by whom?

I assume this means that some of the poodles that were competing in the grade one above or below (Standard and Miniature) would now be in Medium, so there are fewer dogs in each category. Unfortunately I don't have access to the source and can't find anything about the origins of Medium poodles online, so I can't confirm it or clarify who it's believed by. I've rephrased lightly and I'm inclined to take the source on faith about the content but if you think I should remove it I can do that.

• Recent history - Wikilink UK and US Kennel Clubs?
• Recent history - "poodles were quite unpopular until..."
• Recent history - "most popular breed from 1960 to 1982" - any idea what "most popular" means? Most owned in the US? Most entered into AKC shows? Most awarded at AKC shows?
• Appearance - "with the different breed varieties..."
• Appearance - "Some kennel clubs do not recognize the Medium Poodle variety." - you just told us this two paragraphs above ("Not universally recognized by the world's kennel clubs as a variety..."). No need to tell us twice. I think it fits better above and you can remove it here.

I think this is needed here, because it explains why different breed standards have different size for the Standard and Miniature. I've rephrased a bit.

• Coat - "... that is longer than many other breeds of dogs" (obvious from context).
• Clips and grooming - Over 50 different styles of coat clips are recognised..." - is there an official body that recognizes coat clips?

No, edited, no idea where that figure came from.

• Clips and grooming - "A similar clip was historically used... vital organs covered." You already told us this in the History section. Perhaps you can remove one of the mentions?
• Clips and grooming - "Poodle hair can also be 'corded'... human dreadlocks" seems redundant to "Any Poodle with a normal coat can be corded when its adult coat is in." Perhaps you can merge those two sentences?
• Temperament - "Poodles are known as a highly..."
• Health - "The Poodle Health Registry lists..." and "there are no Poodle-specific health problems" read as if they contradict each other (though I suspect they do not). Could you clarify? Maybe you could move the Poodle Health Registry sentence down to lead the next paragraph ("Some of the worst...").
• Health - At first I misread "sebaceous adeneitis, a skin disease and Addison's disease" as being a list of three problems. Perhaps you could rewrite as "...are the skin disease sebaceous adenitis (estimated prevalence 2.7%) and the endocrine disorder Addison's disease."?
• Work and sport - "it is currently..." reads a bit odd since "it" seems to be referring to "Poodles". Maybe "they are currently classified"?
• Work and sport - "...trainable nature and background as a gundog making them suitable to battlefields, as evidenced by their ability to be trained to ignore gunfire." It feels like this sentence is informing me twice that they can be trained to work near guns. Maybe you can shorten it?

Replaced "gundog" with "hunting dog" - does that address the concern about repetition?

• Work and sport - It feels like the last paragraph should go higher, before the fun trivia bits about Prince Rupert and Napoleon.
• Work and sport - "famous hunting Poodle he brought over with him from what is today Germany who would"

2. Verifiable with no original research

• Any reason the {{More citations needed}} tag is still at the top of this page? It seems it can be removed.

None, I forgot to remove it when I finished fixing the sourcing. Removed.

• Is there a reason the second sentence ends with five references? What do they each support?

Most of the book references weren't added by me, and I'm not sure which part of the previous claim are supported by which book. I can try to get access to them to confirm if necessary.

• I don't have access to the books cited in the article, but I've checked the online references up to the beginning of "Clips and grooming" and they all support the referenced material. Will check a few more (hopefully tomorrow).
• Clips and grooming - The paragraph "In most cases... all major kennel club shows." - I'm having trouble finding support for most of the facts in that paragraph in any of three references. Could you breakdown what each of the three sources references, or replace them if needed? I may have just missed parts when skimming the sources.

The UKC source gives "The Standard Poodle's ... is presented in various traditional trims or, less frequently, corded.", for some support for the rarity of the corded clip. The FCI source supports that it's allowed to be presented in shows that use that standard, likewise the UKC, and both have a brief description of the corded coat; the comparison to dreadlocks and the Komondor isn't in there but I think that's within our discretion to allow the reader to picture the effect. The third source I think left behind in a reorganization, replaced with a new one about caring for the corded coat to support that sentence. It isn't the best-looking source but I think this is a reasonably non-controversial statement I feel okay sourcing here.

• Colours - "The Poodle has a wide variety of colouring, including..." I don't see where the reference [1] supports the list of colors.
  • Ah, looking for something else, I saw this ref could support your color list. Perhaps you could add it up there?

Page 6 of the original reference supports the recognized FCI colorings. The citation for the full coloring list was further down in the section, since it supported large parts of it. I've added it there.

• Colours - "Recognized FCI colourations... (apricot and red before 2015)" I read this to mean apricot and red were acceptable colourations to FCI before 2015, but now they are not. But if I understood the cited source (and I very well may not have) apricot and red poodles could be allowed under the color fawn? If that's what you meant, could you clarify the text perhaps?

I meant the latter, but on reflection I've removed that entire parenthetical, it seems like an unnecessary amount of detail.

• Colours - "and are excluded from many registries", the cited ref [2] seems to suggest they were excluded from many shows during the 20th century but are now welcome at many events (it calls out only the "AKC breed ring" as not allowing the dogs). I'm ignorant of dog-showing so I don't know if "registries" refers to something different?

The AKC standard (and some others) specifies "solid colour" (see pg 6). "Conformation" shows are where this standard is applied - those are essentially "does this dog look like what we expect from this breed", often to a very specific standard. Other events, like obedience, are decided on the basis of what the dog can do, and appearance doesn't matter as much. I've changed that second cite to point more directly at the breed standard, and an addition citation to clarify.

• Colours - "however, only solid-colored poodles may compete in conformation" I don't see where the cited ref [3] supports that. Just that it checks only those colors as "standard colors". Also I assume "conformation" is a style of competition, is there a decent wikilink you could add to that? I found Conformation (dog) but it's not really about a competition style.

Added link

• Colours - "The coat will usually be white and coloured in equal amounts," I don't see where the cited ref [4] supports that.

It doesn't and is in fact incorrect, removed, thank you for the catch.

• Colours - "Like Dobermans... secondary color." I don't see where the cited ref [5] supports these two sentences.

I added a cite for the last sentence. I can't find a reliable-looking source for the middle sentence, I've cut it.

• Temperament - "A 1994 study by... 110 breeds in intelligence." - I think this should be tweaked a bit. Coren's book is long, and mostly about the history and different kinds of dog intelligence. He ranks just one aspect of intelligence "working and obedience intelligence", but he also has entire chapters discussing "instinctive intelligence" and "adaptive intelligence". If you'd like to include the ranking, I'd suggest noting that this is "working and obedience intelligence" (or that it's meant to rank their ability to learn from humans, as our article puts it). Also our article on the book claims its a ranking of 130 breeds, not 110 as this article notes. I've got the 2005 edition in front of me and I see it has been expanded to 140 breeds, with the Poodle still #2 (there's a PDF available online if you Google the title; I won't link it as it's probably illegally posted).

Our article says 130 breeds for the 1995 edition, and I don't know recall where I got the number but I mention the 1994 study. The cite goes to the book, though, so I've corrected it to 130 and changed the text to match the citation. I've also rephrased it to match the kind of intelligence, thank you for that catch.

• Made it to the bottom of Description. The last two sections are shorties, so hopefully it won't take long.
• Health - "led to rapid careless breeding aimed..." I'm not sure "careless" is really supported by the source here. The source describes extremely careful breeding, selecting from a small pool of show winners to try to replicate desired characteristics. Maybe you could rephrase?
• Health - "Poodles have a life expectancy of 10-18 years, with the Standard Poodle, like most large dogs, tending to be more short-lived." I don't see anything in the first reference [6] that supports anything in this sentence, so that ref can probably be removed. The second ref [7] says "Standards live 10 to 14 years on average, and Miniatures or Toys average 12 years to late teens." which basically supports the sentence in our article, except "18" is a bit more precise than "late teens"... any chance you can find a source that specifically supports the "10-18" range (perhaps I missed it in one of the sources)?

The first reference is the one with the 10-18 range; it's under "Average sizes and life expectancy of the breed". Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Done! Will try to get to the images asap. Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

• ✓ Pass I checked a few other dogbreed GAs and the major topics they cover are all covered here. Nice work.

4. Neutral

• ✓ Pass

5. Stable

• ✓ Pass

6. Illustrated

• c:File:The Poodle, 1600s painting of the traditional poodle.png - Something's not right with the licensing on this image. If it's truly from the 1600s as claimed, it's in the US public domain, not CC BY-SA. I tried to figure out the provenance of the image so we could sort out its licensing status, but I'm hitting a dead end. The Commons page sources it to this blog post which says only "George Stubbs Paintings, The Poodle". George Stubbs did do lots of dog paintings, including a famous poodle painting, but (A) I can't find any record on the web that he painted this painting, and (B) he was born in 1724, so he couldn't paint a 1600s painting. Any chance you know or can find out more? Otherwise, I'll start a conversation on Commons to see if anyone else can figure something out. In the meantime I'd suggest you remove the image; it's not really critical to the section it's in.

I've removed it for now, I'll try to look into the provenance of the image later.

• All other photos are properly licensed as best I can tell! Ajpolino (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats all for tonight! Will hopefully get through the rest tomorrow. Ajpolino (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the review! I will try to respond to your comments over the weekend. Rusalkii (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, all done. It's a nice article, thanks for the interesting read. It does need a bit of cleanup to the text and references before I think it's ready for the green plus. Let me know if you have questions or need help with anything. Otherwise take your time responding. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii:, just checking in as its been two weeks since you edited the article. I hope all is well. If you'd prefer to improve the article without the open GAN hanging over your head, just let me know. I can close the nomination as "failed", and you could renominate it whenever you're ready. If we go that route, you're welcome to ping me if you'd like me to do the second review, or leave it in the normal queue for a new reviewer to pick up. If instead you just need a bit more time, let me know and I can check in on you in a week or two. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ajpolino Hey, sorry about that, work got a bit much and a medical issue started acting up again. I will try to wrap this up within a week, but if I don't feel free to close it and I'll resubmit whenever I've addressed all your comments. Rusalkii (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all. I hope real life things are improving for you. No rush here. If I don't hear from you in another week I'll "fail" this. But as I said above, when you resubmit just ping me if you'd like me to re-review, and I'll pick it back up asap. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii, per the above I'm going to go ahead and close this review. Like I said above, feel free to renominate any time. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, doing well, just chipping at it slowly. I'll ping you once I'm done. Rusalkii (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ajpolino I think I've (finally) covered everything. Thank you for the thorough comments, I think the prose reads better and you caught some citation issues I missed in my own clean up passes before the nomination. Let me know if there's anything else! Rusalkii (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Super! You've caught me at a busy moment, so if I don't get to this by the end of the weekend, please ping me to remind me. Thanks and I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino ping Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the ping, I'm back at last. Notes: 1. Well written - I've made some minor suggested copyedits, including to the lead. Feel free to revert any you have issues with, or we can discuss here. I'm happy that this is now a pass ✓ Pass

2. Verifiable -

• There's a message on the talk page casting doubt on the weight ranges in the infobox. Could you look into it?
• Just noting for posterity that we don't have the book sources used in the History and Appearances sections, and can't verify several things therein. We can assume in good faith that the material is correct. If you find accessible sources that verify that info, it might be worth replacing some of the less accessible books (nothing against books, but some of the sources are fairly old, and some short sentences inexplicably have 3–5 references).
• Where does Their individual hair follicles have an active growth period that is longer than that of many other breeds; combined with the tightly curled coat, which slows the loss of dander and dead hair by trapping it in the curls, an individual Poodle may release less dander and hair into the environment. come from? I don't see it supported by any of the three cited sources. Instead they all seem to suggest no difference in released dander (though one imagines they release less hair). Also you can probably replace these sources with something newer. A quick Google brings up a few options. It's nice to have relatively recent sources for scientific/medicine-related material so the reader knows the material is still reliable.
• Though not suitable as a guard dog because it is neither a territorial breed nor particularly aggressive, is cited to the AKC site but it looks like that site rates them 5 out of 5 in "Watchdog/Protective Nature". Am I missing something?
• Both diseases became more prevalent in poodles after the 1960s burst which source does this come from? The Pederson paper says "The breed has suffered a major artificial genetic bottleneck associated with show-winning bloodlines that rose to dominance in the 1950s" -- wondering if 1950s was meant here, or if this sentence in the article was based on something else.

Bed time here, will wrap this up tomorrow. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok Rusalkii all set. Criteria 3-6 are met. Could you just straighten out the issues above? Thanks again for the read. Ajpolino (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii:, just a gentle reminder of the above. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii: just another reminder. If there's a problem and you'd like another reviewer, you're welcome to start a new good article nomination, and I'll leave it in the queue for someone else to look over. Otherwise, ping me when you get around to this. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)