Wikipedia:Peer review/Potcake dog/archive1

Potcake dog

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the only article I've written so far, so I'm looking for feedback. Please, rip it apart if you feel the need: I'm not particularly thin-skinned and am always looking for ways to improve.

I'm particularly concerned about the prose quality, although I believe I've improved it since putting the article up for GA. Flow is my bugbear.

Thanks in advance. – anna 06:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flow seems fine to me. A concern is the number of brief paragraphs, which are generally discouraged per WP:Paragraph. You might want to develop those a little more, or else merge them.—RJH (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've merged short paragraphs where possible. I left those in the lead and appearance section since I feel they look better and are helpful in terms of organization; if others disagree I'll condense them as well. I'd expand the sections if I could, but there's a dearth of reliable information on the type's traits. – anna 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think some subjects are just doomed to remain relatively brief. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

No comment on the lead right now specifically, only noting you should try to expand it. It's been said elsewhere that information from each subheader should be included, and this is a good standard to follow.
"Later, because of the role The Bahamas played in maritime commerce, terriers protected supplies from rats and mice on ships, arriving in Eleuthera, New Providence, and the Abaco Islands." The grammar here is off. Reword to note that the terriers arrived and interbred with the local population.
Is North Carolina Dogs a breed, or just dogs from North Carolina?
Give more context about the revolutionary war etc. It might be obvious what is being talked about to Americans, but may be less obvious for others.
Similarly, give context to Nassua and similar places, just say what it is (a city for example).
"it is accepted by the Bahamas Kennel Club as part of Group 9 – Non-Registered, along with other mixed-breed dogs" This be doggy terminology I don't fully understand, sorry. Can it be reworded so that dog-deficient people such as myself can understand the significance of this?
The description problem still has an issue with paragraphing, especially with the one paragraph subsection. I personally don't like subsections with less than two paragraphs, so one line is really pushing it and it probably best removed. If there's not a lot of information in description, just keep it as one chunk of text.
What are the misconceptions about spraying and neutering in the Bahamas?
It states that people have been attacked by stray dogs. Perhaps information on this can be added to the description section.
"adopt out" seems like jargon to me. More academic wording will go far towards a GA.
Move the second picture left so even out the infobox.

Overall, it is a well sourced little article. As the reviewer above said, sometimes articles just remain short, but short articles can hit GA. I suggest squeezing every drop of information possible out of your references. Good luck, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll work on these later today; it's almost through GA review but I'm looking to polish it as much as possible. Much appreciated. – anna 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]