Jump to content

Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Far too long since I reviewed one of your articles! I'll have a look soon, and though I find them very interesting, I'm not exactly a dog expert, so William Harris is free to chime in here if he has anything to add (I saw he already commented on the talk page). Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some citations are used in the intro that art not used in the article body; the intro should not have unique info, and therefore no unique citations, as it is only supposed to summarise the article body. Therefore, the intro doesn't need citations for non-controversial info either. checkY
  • There are a few duplinks in the article body, they can be highlighted with this script (easy to install):[1] checkY
  • "the dogs weigh 29 to 37 pounds (13 to 17 kg) and the bitches" Is it common terminology to only call the males "dogs"?checkY
  • WP:Galleries without context are generally discouraged, so I'd suggest removing it, and if any of the images are important, move them to where they would make sense in the article. checkY
Still seeing a gallery? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears checkY
Interesting, never seen such hidden captions before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image has three different source links, only the first appears to be correct.checkY
Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC) checkY[reply]
Removed wikilinks in info box (if that's what you meant)
I meant on the file page, I removed them myself with this edit[2], so feel free to add the wikilinks you removed back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were an (A) on Commons. Kewl. Atsme Talk 📧 19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sections, especially the first ones, seem rather short, is there no more info to add there?checkY
  • The sourcing of this[3] image seems rather dubious. checkY
  • Likewise with this[4] one, how has it been established that the author is "unknown"? checkY
  • "Common nicknames Stafford & Staffie" I wonder if a comma would be better than "&" for clarity. Especially since one other breed mentioned even has the word "and" in its name.checkY
  • What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? checkY See section Popularity (again)19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Life span Over 12 years" This should also be stated under health, with source.checkY
  • Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname halfway down the article? You even switch between adjacent sentences. Would probably be best to be consistent. checkY - see reason below
  • You also seem to switch randomly between KC and Kennel Club. checkY - see reason below
  • You use both ise and ize endings; since this is a UK related article, best to stick with ise.checkY
  • I think it would be better if the history section was chronological; the Early protection covers a time before that covered in Recognition, so should logically come first. checkY
Arranged chronologically in subsections. 12:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "subject of Sir Percy FitzPatrick’s book Jock of the Bushveld." Could give date for the book.checkY
  • "not to be confused with the American Staffordshire Terrier which is a distinctly separate breed." Not really stated outside the intro, and could use some elaboration,. What is the relation between the two, and why the same name? checkY
  • "In the US, the ASPCA" What is that? Anything to link? Could also be spelled out, like you do with most other organisations. checkY
  • You also use the abbreviation AKC before spelling it out. ?? See lede where it's spelled out.
Personally, I also spell out terms at first mention outside the intro, but I'm not sure what the guidelines say, so no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier added to the list" Why? I thought they were for animal rights? checkY
  • "James Hinks of Birmingham, England was founder of the Bull Terrier." Why is this info about a different breed relevant in the intro here? Also, he is not linked outside the intro. checkY check it now...I've clarified the Hinks connection whereas before, it was a dubious disconnect. I should have been more attentive - apologies.
  • "a breed that "emerged as one of the most successful and enduring." According to who? Also the quote could maybe be paraphrased or repeated in the article body, or moved there. checkY
  • "It wasn't until", "but it wasn't". Contractions are discouraged (done at least three times here).checkY
Discussion

Hey, there FM!! Yes, it has been a while. I was quite pleased to see that you took the review. Quick answer to your dog—-bitch question. It's standard terminology used by breeders and at dog shows. After the dog & bitch classes have been judged, the winners of each division go back in for Winners Dog and Winners Bitch. Oxford defines "dog" as "The male of an animal of the dog family, or of some other mammals such as the otter." I'll get to work on the other issues. Atsme Talk 📧 04:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the citations that weren't needed in the lead, but 2 still remain because they are likely to be challenged. Fn#1 is cited to the same source that is used in the body text, but Fn#3 is from a single source cited only to the lead. It's contains a quote about breed specific legislation that aren't in the sources cited in the body text.
  • The images are properly licensed. They are old images (84 yrs) so they're in the public domain. It's highly probable that the photog has long since died.
  • Yes, they are short so I combined 2 of them, which tightens things up a little. Regarding both temperament and health, we're limited to a generalization of what's expected in that breed. Anything beyond that speaks to individualism.
  • Made a few modifications per William's suggestions. Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being sidetracked, FunkMonk. The article was stable when I made the GAC nom, and I've never had anything like this crop up during a GA review. I responded to what I believed to be valid suggestions from the other 3 editors, and hope they will allow you to continue the review as an uninvolved reviewer making a determination. I invite you to look at their suggestions, and make your own determination as if they were participants in the review. Atsme Talk 📧 23:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that discussion has gone off the rails, I'll leave the issue for last, after I've tried to get an overview of the situation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remain optimistic that you will be able to continue the review uninterrupted. ;-) Atsme Talk 📧 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seems to have stalled as soon as I commented there, so I guess so, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

In your list of issues above, would you be so kind as to strike the ones that were completed to your satisfaction?

Unless I add a further comment below a point, I'm satisfied with the points you've ticked and answered (striking out is rather uncommon, I see it as superfluous). FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? - I've removed the dupe wikilinks in the image box.
  2. Re:links in lede - had to restore the citations as the material was challenged
I've commented on the talk page, the editor there does not seem to be familiar with GA/FAC. In any case, it is not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round 3 - reasons
  1. Re:Gallery - added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears
  2. Re:material cited in lede not seen in body - fixed, may not be verbatim
  3. What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? - see Popularity section
I rather mean physically; it would appear to me that much of the description would also apply to many similar dogs? So what makes it physically distinct from them? FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname - fixed; use full name when specific to breed registry, club names, and referencing titles, and Staffie when generically describing the dog.
  2. Re: The Kennel Club vs KC - fixed
  • Final round
  1. Ok, I've clarified the James Hinks connection. Pretty sure I fixed all the izes to ises. Re-ordered the sections for fluidity, expanded/clarified where I could without getting too FA-like vs GA-like. As for acronyms vs spelling out, I created sub-sections for KC & AKC in the Recognition section, and added a few more breed associations in the lead of the Recognition section. I've added a checkY in your list above along with a few comments. Atsme Talk 📧 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, you just added one more ize ending in a section header though, " Unrecognized breed"! I wonder if there is anything on physical differences from other breeds? Will get back to the nickname issue later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FM, I never would have recognized it if you had not recognised it. 😂 Re: your question: physical differences from other breeds? Not quite sure what you're reaching for? Nickname issue...I realise your goal is consistency but consider the following: my useage of the nickname vs the formal full name is somewhat equivalent to using uppercase President vs lower case president. I used Staffordshire Bull Terrier when the formal name was appropriate, and Staffie when appropriate to be informal. However, not unlike my use of ize vs ise, there may have been a little slippage which is an early sign of being kennel blind; i.e., my splay-footed, bug-eyed, wire haired dog with the overbite is tomorrow's Westminster Best In Show. ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the physical differences; what sets this one apart from, say, an American Pit Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier? And I'm still unsure why the American Staffordshire has the similar name? As for the talk page discussion, I'll let it play out and read through it so that I can better understand what's going on. Strange how the article is suddenly attracting so many editors... Haven't seen anything like it since I peer reviewed Balfour Declaration, which one might think is a much more contentious article... FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Breeders develop new breeds via outcrosses and line breeding, etc. to improve upon or breed out certain inheritable traits/genetic qualities. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the result of breeders in the US wanting a bigger, heavier dog than the Staffie, so they outcrossed Staffies to larger, big boned dogs (molosser) to develop a new standard and purpose. AST's are heavier and taller than the English Staffies (AST males are 18 to 19 inches at the shoulder vs SBT at 14 to 16 inches). It probably had something to do with gaining advantage in pit fighting back in the day. The appearances of the Staffie vs American Staffie would probably be along the same lines as a Giant Schnauzer vs a Schnauzer vs a Miniature Schnauzer but more subtle. Breed standards would also provide some of the differences. Example, AKC allows both cropped or uncropped ears on AST whereas Staffies must be uncropped. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I think it warrants a mention then that the American breed is (partially?) descended from the British one, now it reads like they have nothing in common but the name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a not to be confused with at the top of the page. I recently removed mention of that breed in the lede because the American Staffordshire Terrier is arguably the same as the American Pit Bull Terrier with the exception that the APBT is UKC registered and not recognized by AKC, and the AST is recognized by AKC but not UKC. AKC says of the AST: "Whatever the AmStaff’s true genetic composition might be, we are certain that working-class Brits with an interest in blood sports combined the stocky build and punishing jaws of old-style Bulldogs with the innate courage and “gameness” of terriers to create bull-type terrier breeds." AKC eventually recognized AST and SBT as two separate breeds. According to Britannica: "Authorities differ on whether the American Staffordshire Terrier and the pit bull are the same breed. The AKC and the Continental Kennel Club separate them, whereas the United Kennel Club combines both within the American Pit Bull Terrier breed." Staffordshire Bull Terriers were originally developed in England and have maintained their purebred status there and in the US. The ancestral connection (especially in dog years) is too far back and mention of it would only cause confusion. Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this seems like pretty significant info. To me, and probably many other unfamiliar readers, it actually creates far more confusion that the issue of two different breeds with the same name is not addressed. The first thing that comes to mind is "what's the connection", and looking throughout the article to find the answer. If there is a controversy of whether the two are the same or not, that should definitely be mentioned (just like possible synonymies between animal taxa are always discussed in their articles). FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this article for appearances. In looking at the WP article, American Staffordshire Terrier, (which needs updating/fact checking), the commonality is the Bulldog x Terrier ancestry. Trying to connect the two is a bit complicated because timelines vary, much of the information is based on anecdotal reports dating back to the 1880s+/-, and it is difficult to find corroborating accounts. There's also this, but not everything falls quietly into place. Tomorrow's another day. Atsme Talk 📧 03:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The segues weren't easy but I somehow managed to keep the flow. Atsme Talk 📧 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer for me with the added context, thanks. Now, on to the talk page discussion... FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the responses to the points I've made, but since there is currently a lot of editing and discussion going on, I'll wait until it settles, so we can reach a stable version. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, the last standing challenge on the article TP is about the omission of rat-baiting from the history. I may not be holding my mouth right when I type in the words for a Google or Bing search but I've been unable to find any RS that state Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting. In fact, the closest I came to anything other than bear & bull baiting was a recent article about an isolated incident of illegal badger hunting. I've put in a request for 2 sources that support rat-baiting with Staffordshire Bull Terriers, so I guess now we wait. Atsme Talk 📧 04:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) @Atsme: I'm not sure it's precisely the same thing, but it UK the word more commonly used is (was, I gues) ratting; see [5] for various sources.
Great article though . Our Stella would be proud of you. Well, she'd doubtless prefer sausages, but that's the way of things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SN - so happy to see you here!! You are among my favorite editors when it comes to collaboration, yet we've had too few engagements in that regard. Thank you for pointing to the books, and bringing the term to my attention. Rat-baiting was originally in the lede, then I changed it to "vermin control", and recently it went back to rat-baiting because vermin-control was challenged, then replaced with bull-baiting which appeared to be more prominent. Perhaps it should have said "vermin destruction" per the following source. I added ratting back to the lead, and a note about badger-baiting as a clandestine blood sport in the subsection Early protection. Atsme Talk 📧 17:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Thanks very much, you're very kind. I'm sorry if I was jumping into to controversy with my suggestion: I see on the talk page that you've been mildly trolled over it for a while now. Apologies, but I stopped reading that TLDR sometime ago...! ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, aside from the typical minor IP/newbie drive-by, all is quiet on the western front. Atsme Talk 📧 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll have a look at the latest round of comments on the talk page soon, then I'll see if I can suggest how to progress, if anything is even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk - just an FYI, added rat-baiting based on suggestion by Serial Number 54129 - see my comment above. Atsme Talk 📧 17:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, per Cavalryman V31's points on the talk page, I do agree that a lot of space is devoted to Hinks, without it being clear what he has to do with this particular breed. I do think Hinks warrants a mention in the article, though, since the sources about this breed do seem to cover him. I don't think he warrants an entire subheader at least, and the text about him could be cut down (and cut parts moved to articles about the relevant breeds). On a similar note, "of Birmingham, England" is irrelevant to the intro, as it has nothing to do with the subject of this article (more relevant details about this breed are not mentioned, while that is).
  • The line "first arrived in North America in the mid to late 1800s" does not match the mid 1880s date stated in the intro.
  • Cavalryman's issue that the line "The Staffie's early origins as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition as a breed for entry in the KC's breed registry" is unsupported by the refs seems to be unfounded, as the first ref says "Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930's that the KC recognised the breed", and the second says "Although offshoots of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier were given recognition by the English Kennel Club as early as the late 1800’s, it was 1935 before this breed received the same honor, primarily due to it’s fighting history.".
  • Ratting should be mentioned in the article body with source, not just the intro. Otherwise the intro seems to reflect the article body, but could perhaps also include a bit on its temperament and health, since the intro is supposed to summarise all important aspects of the article.
  • Still one "ize" left, "AKC would not recognize".
  • I am unsure what Nomopbs's remaining points are, but they are welcome to list them here for evaluation. But intros do not need citations for uncontroversial info, as they are only supposed to summarise the article body, where the citations are located.
Thanks. I'd like to settle all grievances in an orderly fashion on the talk page, point by point, before I close the nomination, so it doesn't disintegrate into an edit war afterwards. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied. This shouldn't be harder to solve than the Balfour Declaration article was. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Just continue whatever you're doing without me. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier/GA1&oldid=908270464"