Talk:Whippet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally decided to take a look at this article for a review. Its good to see someone else working on Dog articles as my interest on them has lessoned over the past 12 months (I find fixing IP edits something akin to fighting a forest fire with an eyedropper). Anyway, from the first glance nothing seems to stick out massively, so I'll give it a more thorough read through now and post the points as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really something "to do", but more a personal preference of mine after it was suggested in a dog breed GAN review of my own some time ago - I think that the articles work better with history first, then description and then health. I originally did them in the same order as you have here, and I think that its probably only the later Good Articles that have the structures re-ordered. So happy to keep it the way it is as we certainly don't have an MOS or anything on the subject, but I wanted to note it here for completeness.

References: Are there specific page numbers for reference #2 or #19? If you need to see how to break down a book citation into different references for different pages, then I suggest looking at Cocker Spaniel. I tried it out there first and have continued to use that style of formatting ever since.
Also for the book references, I suggest using www.worldcat.org to fill out those citation templates, you should be able to get publication dates and ISBN numbers from there.
Reference number #4 needs a format added - its just "format=DOC" added to the citation template. Likewise, #7 needs to have format=PDF included.
References #8, #9 need more complete citations in the same format as the other references. So does #13 (and the format=PDF as well).
General note on references, the date formats also all need to be the same.
Ref #11 needs to have the source (The Kennel Club) included in the citation.
Ref #17 would be better off having "Saluki Club of America" rather than "salukiclub.com" in the citation. Likewise, #10 would be better if it just said "Canada's Guide to Dogs" rather than the website url.
Ref #20 - you'll need to edit the citation template from pages=12 to page=12, that'll change the text displayed from "pp" to "p" which is the correct way of displaying a single page.
Another non-action, but worthwhile mentioning here in case it gets questioned later - Ref #9 does meet the reliable source criteria as it appears to be edited by a practising veterinary.

Images: All the images check out, but after reading the appearance section, do you know if there is a free use image of a long haired Whippet? I don't recall ever seeing one, but it would help. (Not a deal breaker if one isn't available). Failing that, a whippet at full contraction to show the double suspension gallop would also be a good image to include.

Temperament: The single line first paragraph should probably merge into the second paragraph as short one line paragraphs are a little unsightly.
Can the "poor man's racehorse" quote be attributed to a specific person. Even if it's just to the book author, it'd stop someone from coming in later and sticking one of those annoying "who?" templates in there.
I've got to ask, as I'm not too familiar with whippets (I know some people with ex-racing greyhounds, but none with whippets) - are they as completely lazy in a domestic setting as a greyhound? The ones I know seem spend the entire time sleeping! Just curious, but if that behaviour is mentioned in a citable source then it'd be worthwhile including it.
The final paragraph in Temperament is missing sources apart from that quote.

Health: Might be appropriate to link "course" to something appropriate. Readers not familiar with the term won't know what that is.
I would merge that final single line paragraph with the first paragraph. Literally just copy and paste it after the text in the first paragraph, it'll make that opening paragraph a better size too.

History: "It is only beginning with this period that the existence of the Whippet as a distinct breed can be stated with certainty." needs a citation.
Starline's Chanel is mentioned, I don't think you need to include that. In fact, it'd be better to mention that Courtenay Fleetfoot of Pennyworth owned by Peggy Newcombe won Best in Show at Westminster in 1964. There should be citations you can borrow for that at List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. Likewise at Crufts, two whippets have won best in show, Pencloe Dutch Gold in 1992 and most recently Cobyco Call the Tune in 2004. References should be available to use at List of Best in Show winners of Crufts.

That'll do it for now. You've made a good start, and trust me, you're doing a lot better than I did with my first breed article (which was English Cocker Spaniel, an article I subsequently demoted because I didn't think it was well referenced enough to keep its GA status). When I was doing dog breed articles I found archive.org quite useful as it has a number of early 20th dog books. While the health issues are often out of date, they do sometimes have little bits of history which are otherwise missed from modern books. For example the early information on the Dandie Dinmont Terrier came exclusively from a book published in 1885. While more modern books had a general idea, that book have some very specific details. (I already checked and there isn't one on there for Whippets, but you might get some interesting information from the works of Stonehenge etc). Let me know when you've had a chance to have a look at the above and I'll come back and finish the review. Miyagawa (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believed I made all the fixes; if I missed one just let me know and I'll do it real quick. --TKK ^{bark !} 14:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a couple of tweaks outstanding on the reference formatting. #3 would be better broken down into individual page references, #16 needs an access date, #19 could do with adding the source rather than just having the link and the accessdate. Can the date in #25 be formatted like the others (no problem if it's due to the template and you can't change it). Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also theres a couple of disambig links going to Collier and Best in Show. Miyagawa (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! I also fixed a couple other weird dates I noticed. Anything else? --TKK ^{bark !} 04:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had two more very minor fixes, but so minor that it wasn't worth delaying this by asking you to add a full stop! I'll run the checklist through now:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

So in short, this one now meets the GA requirements. A good job, and I hope this will be the first of many new dog breed articles to meet the standard! :) Miyagawa (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]