Talk:Pug/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

As the Good article nominator from 2010, I think it's fair now that with better dog breed articles to compare it with that the article doesn't stand up. Add to that, a couple of cleanup banners that should it be nominated for GA now would autofail on - I think this article needs to be substancially improved in order to continue to meet the GA criteria.

In addition, to that two tags, in general the Temperament section is inadequate and there isn't really much in the way of a description either.

For references, #s 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39, 40 are all questionable as to their reliability, and 42 is now a deadlink. Each of those would need to be replaced which as you can see from the number of citations I just listed, would require some significant redrafting.

I'm going to leave this GAR up for a week to see if another editor is willing to pick it up. I'm afraid I no longer have any wish to edit main breed dog articles for exactly the sorts of reasons that lead to the Pug article being on perminent semi protection. Miyagawa (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)