Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Charles Spaniel/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 15:21, 6 November 2011 [1].

King Charles Spaniel

[edit]

King Charles Spaniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because no consensus was reached last month when the nomination was closed and at the time everything had been addressed so I think we're close now. :) Previous FAC nomination is here. To reiterate something said in the previous nomination - A note on naming conventions (as it has come up in previously), it is the Project MOS that dog breed names have each word capitalised (e.g. King Charles Spaniel or Pug), however where the word refers to a type of dog then it is in fully lowercase (e.g. spaniel or toy dog). Also, I am a competitor in the final round of the WikiCup. Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed it to New Haven, Connecticut; all ISBNs have had thier hyphens and spaces removed, and I've made both the citations with multiple publisher locations have those locations seperated by semi-colons - previously one was by this and the other was by a comma. Thanks for looking through the article. Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Are fine. Mostly fine. File:King Charles Spaniel 200.jpg could do with Template:Information. Is File:Blenheim Spaniel 1903.jpg PD in the UK? The author can't legally request that File:King charles spaniel.jpg isn't edited if it is released under that license. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added the information template to the infobox image and added the appropriate PD tag to the Blenheim Spaniel image (I'd only previously missed it because the source was published in the USA as well). Any suggestions to what I should do with about the request for the image not to be edited? I'd swap it out with another image if one was avaliable but unfortunatly there isn't a lot of images of this breed around (you'd be surprised how hard it is to filter out Cavalier King Charles Spaniel photos on Flickr!). Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the Czech name for the dog kennel that the dogs are at. I've done some Googling and the author of the image is listed as the manager of that kennel. Main site: here. However, I've looked into the uploader and commons and it's quite apparent that he's not the manager as he's uploaded other images of King Charles Spaniels from another kennel under another author name - so I'm taking the image off the article immediately. Miyagawa (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Where is "Holland Spaniel" mentioned beyond the infobox?
  • George Romney is a dab link.
  • "these types of spaniels" - new para so shouldn't it be "King Charles Spaniels..."?
  • " toy–sized" shouldn't that just be a hyphen not an en-dash?
  • Same with re-breed and cross-breed?
  • Isn't the Kennel Club just, well, The Kennel Club, not (UK) after it? You don't seem consistent with this (UK) in any case, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to do.
  • Ensure all external refs have access dates.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed Holland Spaniel (it was a stay over from before I did any work on this article), fixed the dab link and changed "these type" to "toy spaniels". Fixed the en-dashes (need to get my head around those), and removed the "(UK)" bits. Not sure which links you're referring to - if it's the open directory project, that link comes from a template that doesn't allow for a date to be inserted and links to a directory of other links. It did cause me to go through the citations to see if you meant one of those, and found I'd missed publisher details for the newspapers and a format detail for one of the PDFs, which are now fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a very short Health section relative to how small the breed is and how many disorder it's associated with. At the very least the article needs some numbers and percentages of the disorders listed. Others also need to be mentioned. I know what it's like to get breed organisations to admit that their promoted breed has serious issues, but at least the Finnish breed registry for King Charles Spaniels lists, not mentioned at the WP article as of now, as known issues in the Finnish population stub or crooked tail (not of T-Box type) (general breed info). Does this affect European or US populations? It also features detailed numbers in its breeding program (section 4.3 and subsections), mentions that there are no statistics concerning the breed's health available outside of Finland (is this really true?!) and elaborates on RD (retinal dysplasia), pulmonal stenosis, hydrocephalus (as rare), and spefically as internationally admitted problems, PDA (addressed in WP article), and syringomyelia (Norway, Sweden, France, UK, and USA). Pitke (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks: I checked both cites to Palika p. 190, and I checked five of the eight references to Shaw (1881). In all cases, the source contains the cited material, with no copyright violation or close paraphrasing issues. – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would reword "The King Charles and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are often confused with each other." I know what you mean, but a literal reading would indicate that these dogs often get confused when they are near each other. – Quadell (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Comments - Disclaimer, I reviewed this article for GA status. That was a while ago, however, and the article has changed a good bit since then. A few thoughts:[reply]

  • Lead, "The breeds may have been used for hunting historically;" Later in the article you say they were used for hunting - why the equivocation in the lead?
  • Now I'm starting to question why this paragraph starts out with "the breeds have" (plural) and then switches to "the breed has" (singular). I'm assuming this is because the first part of the paragraph is discussing the history of the four breeds that created what is now the KCS and the later part is discussing the KCS now. However, this should probably be made more specific.
  • 17th century, ""These do not appear to have been the small black kind known by his name, but Cockers, as is evident from the pictures of Van Dyck and the print by Sir R. Strange, after this master, of three of his children, in which they are introduced."" I'm confused as to what this quote is trying to say. Is the "small black kind known by his name" meaning King Charles Spaniels? Because in the next paragraph it says they were named after Charles II, not Charles I as is discussed in this paragraph. Second, "after this master, of three of his children, in which they are introduced." What? I really do not understand what this is trying to say. Also, why is it important that Charles I was seen with cocker spaniels? Aren't these different than the toy spaniels the rest of the article is discussing?
  • 17th century, "Charles II was very fond of this type of dog, which is why the dogs now carry his name," First, you were just discussing cocker spaniels in the previous paragraph, so should probably clarify "this type". Second, the repetition of "dogs" could probably be improved upon.
  • I am interesting to see what you can find from the links Pitke added above. I agree that the Health section does feel a bit short when you consider all of the illnesses that these dogs are prone to.
  • Description, "The American Kennel Club has two classes, English Toy Spaniel (B/PC) (Blenheim and Prince Charles) and English Toy Spaniel (R/KC)," Why does the AKC separate the two types? Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The four color types were formerly considered separate breeds, the UK Kennel Club combined them as one breed, but the US Kennal Club classified them as two breeds. I can't find that either of them explained their decision.Marj (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AKC tend to do this sort of thing for a variety of breeds - for instance, I think the American Cocker Spaniel is split into three separate classes. It isn't limited to spaniels either, the Bull Terrier is split into white classes and colored classes, whereas I don't think the Kennel Club do it to any breeds at all. Additionally, the AKC have two classes based on height in the Beagle, so the splits aren't even limited to markings in some cases. Miyagawa (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I struck the completed comments above and added a couple more after I finished reading through the article. I am almost ready to support, but want to see your additions to the health section before I do. I saw that there was a minor addition to the section by another user on October 2 - I'm assuming you have more that you're planning to add? Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't find anything helpful at the library, but have incorporated information from the Finnish breed club into the article as linked to above. Also broke the section up and did a little rearranging in order to fit the new layout. Also found some information on some issues that they don't consider health issues on the English Toy Spaniel Club of America's site. Miyagawa (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) A few further comments on the re-written health section:

  • "as well as specific breed-associated health conditions, there are no clear problems." This "no clear problems" seems to be dangling as you give several health concerns and then say "there are no clear problems".
  • Removed "no clear problems" - what I meant by that was that in some breeds there are certain condition which the majority of the breed will suffer from - for instance the Clumber Spaniel according to some surveys will have an 80% to suffer from hip dysplasia, but there isn't anything nearly as prevalent in this breed. Miyagawa (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the breed should be able to reproduce naturally." Should be? Are we saying should be as in the registries say it should, or that we're not sure it can? :)
  • The source says should - outside of the given source this is actually unusual for a stub nosed breed as certainly at least Pugs and Bulldogs have to rely predominately on caeserian sections in order to give birth. But of course every dog is different so while the breed should, there will be individual dogs that won't be able to. Miyagawa (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a few copyediting tweaks, please check to make sure I didn't inadvertently change the meaning of anything. Once the above couple of issues are dealt with, I think I will be ready to support. Dana boomer (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I found the article to be well-written and well-organized, with the MoS followed. The sourcing is excellent, and the images are appropriate. – Quadell (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too many images for my liking, giving rise to ugly effects like indenting subheadings, some could be lost without detriment
  • cardiac, diabetes mellitus — need links at first use
  • of these same types — similar?
  • showing the partiality of royalty for these dogs before the monarch from which one type would eventually take their name. — clunky and ungrammatical
  • In 1899, the price ranged between $50–$200 for a King Charles or Blenheim,[33] with the Ruby and Prince Charles Spaniel ranging between $50–$150. — why are we pricing in dollars, without conversion, for an essentially British breed? Especially as later you give £25 without conversion, so not consistent either.
  • Being a short–nosed breed, King Charles Spaniels can be sensitive to anaesthesia — I don't understand how the length of a dog's nose can influence its susceptibility to anaesthesia, or am I misunderstanding?
  • Please check that each occurrence of type and however is essential

Have Pitke's concerns (above) been addressed? Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've incorporated the suggested source but neglected to post a response directly under their comment (I'd posted at the time under another users comment regarding the health section). Miyagawa (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found several prose errors; please check the article for other such problems. I also find it odd that you're citing a 1911 source for the breed's Asian origin; surely science has progressed since then. Ucucha (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with modern sources is that more often then not they talk about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel instead of the King Charles Spaniel. The end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century was almost a golden era for dog writing - investigations were made into the history of a number of dog breeds and they were documented properly for the first time. While a number of modern books discuss the breed histories, none of them go into same level of depth as the older books. Miyagawa (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I made some copyedits, and trimmed the Google Books links. Prose and MoS compliance looks pretty good to me, just a few niggles: Sasata (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Historically the breeds that were merged into the King Charles Spaniel were used for hunting; due to their stature they were not well suited." I'm not sure I understand this sentence: these breeds were used for hunting, although they weren't good at it?
  • That's actually the correct understanding - the Blenheim in particular was used for hunting because they were thought to be exclusively linked to the Duke of Marlborough, since Spaniels at the time were grouped predominetly first by land or water use and then by size, the Blenheim Spaniel was used as a gundog in the same way as a Cocker Spaniel. Except, they were a toy spaniel and both too small to be effective in the terrain and without enough endurance. But because he was known for having these dogs, he kept using them. The quote from the Sportsman's Repository rather sums up that most authors at the time were terribly polite about it, but thought he was wasting his time. Miyagawa (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistent spelling UK or US: theorized vs. recognised?
  • I share Jim's reservation about the dog prices being in dollars instead of pounds, and not converted to modern values (the prices are essentially meaningless otherwise)
  • I've removed the pounds sterling number as that is useless, but I've kept the dollars as I thought it showed some flavour to the Bismarck affair - it's not the first time that a famous person towards the end of the 19th century got ripped off on a dog breed they didn't know much about. (I remember reading something similar happened with the Tzar of Russia and the Duchess of Newcastle with Borzois, but then then she old paid £200 for them!). I'd prefer to convert the sums into modern figures but the inflation calculators I've found only go back as far as 1914. But the average prices given after the Bismarck note shows how far above the norm he paid for that dog. Miyagawa (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be a good idea to add your explanation of why short noses are problematic for delivering anesthesia, assuming that can be sourced
  • Done, and sourced. I'd found a clear reference but was concerned at it's reliability until I found that the article was written by a qualified veterinarian, so I've added it. Also had additional information regarding other issues with the restricted airway, so I've added those too. Miyagawa (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • make sure book titles are consistently title or sentence case; same with article titles
  • make sure the US state is or is not displayed in the location, and if so, whether it's abbreviated or spelled out in full
  • ref #10 (Caius 1576) should indicate that it's in Latin
  • accessdates aren't required for print-based sources that are online; yes, I realize it contradicts what the Rambling Man said above, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct :)
  • publication date format is different in refs #44 and 45
  • Since the information is available on the web pages, refs #52, #55 & #68 should have the date the page was created or last modified
  • ref #60 is missing the issue# and the doi
  • the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals is linked twice in consecutive paragraphs, and an abbreviation is not defined until the second usage

Thanks for your comments, I'll find some sourcing for that short nose explanation tonight and sort out the title/sentence case for book and article titles - is there any particular preference? Miyagawa (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward oppose. I am overall disappointed with the history section. I thought the rest of the article met the FA criteria.

  • I thought the history did not focus well enough on the breed, but seemed to meander into a lot of details and anecdotes about art and royalty.
    • Yes, I agree that it is significant that the dogs are featured in painting, but in my opinion having almost every paragraph of the history section referencing one or more specific paintings is a sign that we've lost our focus. I felt like I was reading a "history of how spaniels were depicted in art" instead of a history of the Spaniel. Summarizing a lot of this (Spaniels which looked like x, y, and z were commonly depicted in paintings by A, B, and C during the period XXXX - YYYY.) would make the section a lot shorter, but a lot more focused.
      • The sheer volume of paintings that the English Toy Spaniel breeds of dogs appeared in over the years demonstrates their popularity during those periods. Prior to the 19th century there is next to nothing written on the history of dog breeds - anything before those dates will talk about dogs mostly in a hunting context, which these types of dogs were not used for. Meanwhile the paintings show the development of the breeds over the years. Miyagawa (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, but do we need the details in this article, or can we have less specifics and more generalization? I think this is currently much too concentrated on specific paintings. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really important to know that Bismarck bought a dog and then to learn the details of that dog?
      • I thought that it showed two things - the first was that these breeds were not favored solely by the British, and secondly it showed the variety in sizes of the breed at the period. Miyagawa (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't like using anecdotes to demonstrate that "these breeds were not favored solely by the British". That gives the perception of WP:OR. Much better to say "These breeds were popular in other countries" - but if our only point of reference is a source that says "Bismarck bought a dog" then we can't even say that. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really significant that Grand Duchess Anastasia owned a dog which was killed with her? Even if it is, do we need to know the name of the man of found the bodies, that the bodies were found in a clearing and were burned?
  • Lots of references to British royalty without dates. Charless II is mentioned several times before we finally learn that he lived in the latter half of the 17th century. I understand because I'm familiar with British royalty, but many of our readers won't be.
  • "breed overall moving away from the one seen in earlier works by Anthony van Dyck during the 17th century" - besides the nose, how?
  • The breed's skull and size changed overall. The modern Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is a good description of the look of the old breed - basically the skull was a different shape, and a little bit bigger. Miyagawa (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paragraphs jump around between topics, especially in the section 19th century...
    • The third paragraph was originally in the first section of the history section, but I was advised to move it to the 19th century during the FA process as it was written by 19th century authors. Miyagawa (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not quite understanding why the king choose King Charles as the name for the spaniels. The history section lists lots of royalty which owned these dogs. The Charles stuff doesn't stand out much in the backdrop of all of that.
    • One set of markings had been named after King Charles (although no evidence to say since when), while the others in use were Prince Charles, Blenheim and Ruby. It was because it was already used for the markings (and to describe this previously seperate breed) that the King at the time requested that the amalgamated breeds be known as this. Miyagawa (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Get some dashes into the date ranges in the lead (two in the second paragraph).
  • History: Pretty sure that the dash in "mid–19th century" should just be a regular old hyphen.
  • Conformation showing and the 20th century: "Breeders entered what they considered to be sub–par King Charles Spaniels." Again, the dash should be a hyphen here.
  • Other common issues: "causing this tissue to obstruct the dogs naturally narrow airways." Apostrophe needed at end of "dogs".
  • In the general references, if they are intended to be in authors' alphabetical order, Coile should come before Diehl. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- as usual, I've sampled one section of the article, the final section. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Final paragraph of the article: "There are also several breed traits which may cause concern as health issues. These include fused toes, where two or more of the dog's toes are fused together." This doesn't seem to accurately and fully represent the source (which I assume is reliable), which says "Fused toes may be misdiagnosed as a health problem. This is a breed trait and not a cause for concern."
  • "The English Toy Spaniel Club of America recommends that umbilical hernias should preferably be corrected only in conjunction with other surgeries due to the general risk of surgery." This sentence is very difficult to follow. "preferably" seems redundant after "recommends". I'm not sure whether "general risk" is a good term, it seems to encompass all kinds of surgery, whereas the source seems to be only talking about hernia surgery specifically.
  • "This is because in brachycephalic dogs, there is additional tissue in the throat directly behind the mouth and nasal cavity, known as the pharynx. Anesthesia also acts as a muscle relaxing property, causing this tissue to obstruct the dogs' naturally narrow airways." Not sure what the word "also" is doing here, or the word "naturally".
  • "These narrow airways can also cause the dog to have an inability to exercise properly and increases the susceptibility to heat stroke." There's a fair bit of surplus wording in that sentence, especially "have an inability".
  • "However, surveys conducted by the Finnish breed club between 1988 and 2007 found that the occurrences were higher in some years, ranging from 5.3% to 50%." 5.3 to 50? Surely some explanation is needed for those wildly variant numbers.
  • "Of these conditions, distichia (where extra eyelashes or hairs cause irritation to the eye) is considered the most common" I'm not finding support for "most common" in the source cited.
  • Have you consulted the ACVO Genetics Committee Report (2007), cited in Gough & Thomas?

Request to close: Although it pains me to say it, as one of the more recent requests for modifications to this article would result in a rather drastic overhaul of the history section which would pretty much render all previous reviews null and void, I would like to request that this is closed as a failed nomination while I decide whether or not to make those changes. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to review this article, it's a lot better for it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it's had four supports (as is) and no opposes. – Quadell (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miyagawa, please reverse any of these edits if you don't agree with them.
Fused toes, where two or more of the dog's toes are fused together, may seem to be a health issue but this breed trait is not a cause for concern.
The English Toy Spaniel Club of America recommends that umbilical hernias be corrected only if other surgery is required, due to the risk of surgery in brachycephalic breeds.
Anesthesia acts as a muscle relaxant, causing this tissue to obstruct the dogs' narrow airways.
These narrow airways can decrease the dogs' ability to exercise properly and increase their susceptibility to heat stroke.
Compared to other breeds, the King Charles Spaniel has an increased risk of distichia (where extra eyelashes or hairs cause irritation to the eye). Marj (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/King_Charles_Spaniel/archive2&oldid=1089084440"