Misplaced Pages

Talk:Golden Retriever: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:13, 9 January 2022 editCavalryman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,613 edits Reinstating original GA nomination with original time stampTags: Undo Reverted← Previous edit Revision as of 00:20, 9 January 2022 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,670,005 editsm Transcluding GA reviewTag: Manual revertNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|09:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)|nominator=]|page=1|status=|subtopic=Biology and medicine|note=|time=}} {{GA nominee|09:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)|nominator=]|page=1|status=onreview|subtopic=Biology and medicine|note=|time=}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=60|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} {{Talk header|archive_age=60|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Vital article|topic=Biology|subpage=Animals|level=5|class=B}} {{Vital article|topic=Biology|subpage=Animals|level=5|class=B}}
Line 45: Line 45:
:Hello IP, I agree the section was terribly worded and worse, terribly or unsourced. I have stripped it of everything unsourced or uniquely cited to unreliable sources. ] (]) 07:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC). :Hello IP, I agree the section was terribly worded and worse, terribly or unsourced. I have stripped it of everything unsourced or uniquely cited to unreliable sources. ] (]) 07:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC).
:: Hello, thank you, {{U|Cavalryman}}. I saw the current version and it seems it would be better if the content of the section "Common health problems" are merged into the "Health and Lifespan" section. Those two sentences can be merged into a single section though I would say even does not have problem. --] (]) 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC) :: Hello, thank you, {{U|Cavalryman}}. I saw the current version and it seems it would be better if the content of the section "Common health problems" are merged into the "Health and Lifespan" section. Those two sentences can be merged into a single section though I would say even does not have problem. --] (]) 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

{{Talk:Golden Retriever/GA1}}

Revision as of 00:20, 9 January 2022

Golden Retriever is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Cavalryman at 09:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden Retriever article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconDogs B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Proposed new picture of a 9-year old Golden Retriever

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Should this picture be added in the Health and Lifespan section? File:Golden Retriever 9-year old.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdelamaza (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing the request, as this is the start of a discussion rather than a specific requested edit. Feel free to discuss on this section. Also you've got a mighty fine dog. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't edit the article myself as my account is not confirmed yet. Feel free to use the picture in the article if you deem it appropiate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdelamaza (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Health and Lifespan

Out of curiosity, why is is necessary to have references to the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals and PennHIP-- both American organisations, in the section regarding Hip dysplasia for an animal that is a popular global breed? Talking about having pups checked for Hip dysplasia specifically by organisations located in Missouri and Pennsylvania (resp) is unnecessary and is otherwise irrelevant to anyone not living in those states or the US, again, for a breed of dog renowned for it's popularity around the world. (14.2.67.94 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The line X "The Golden Retriever is a medium-large gun dog that was bred to retrieve shot waterfowl, such as ducks and upland game birds, during hunting and shooting parties." Is incorrect. They weren't bred for waterfowl, which is one of the reasons goldens often show an aversion to holding and carrying ducks. Instead they were bred for upland game and deer. The source, directly from the Guisachan, the brith place of the Golden Retriever. Should be Y "The Guisachan dogs were bred to be strong working dogs hunting grouse, partridge and deer." https://friendsofguisachan.org/main/guisachan-dogs/ Jhanlauf (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - PianoDan (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE Re-phrase the last sentence of Health and lifespan section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last sentence of the section Health and Lifespan currently reads as follows:

"Puppies should eat about three cups of food a day and adults three to five cups, depending on the food and how active the dog is."

Wiki-content should not be phrased like this as it will contradict WP:NOTGUIDE. Rather, the sentence, I propose, should be edited as follows:

"Puppies are recommended to be fed 3 cups of food a day and adults are recommended to be fed 3-5 cups, depending on the food and how active the dog is."

The current version sounds as an advice from Misplaced Pages itself while Misplaced Pages does not advice anything. It can just narrate the consensus on what is advised. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, I agree the section was terribly worded and worse, terribly or unsourced. I have stripped it of everything unsourced or uniquely cited to unreliable sources. Cavalryman (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC).
Hello, thank you, Cavalryman. I saw the current version and it seems it would be better if the content of the section "Common health problems" are merged into the "Health and Lifespan" section. Those two sentences can be merged into a single section though I would say even the current version does not have problem. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Golden Retriever/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


Hello Cavalryman. I will be be GA reviewing this article in the coming days. Please contact me for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Section-wise Assessment

Lead Section

  • Lead section is fine

History

 Done although I am keen to the thoughts of a second reviewer. 9 Jan 22.
  • 'Prior to the publication Marjoribanks' meticulously' Why is there an apostrophe after his name?
minus Removed, it has been reworded. 9 Jan 22.
  • 'Prior to the publication Marjoribanks' meticulously maintained and very detailed stud book in 1952, a number of romantic tales were published stating the breed descends from among other things a troupe of Russian circus dogs that performed in Brighton in the 1860s, but the records tell a different story.' Revise this sentence; it is difficult to understand
 Done, I have cut half of the sentence away. 9 Jan 22.
  • 'In the 1860s Marjoribanks set out with a complicated line breeding plan in mind to create what to his mind was the ultimate breed of retriever at his Scottish estate Guisachan.' This sentence is again too long and complicated.
 Done, with a complicated line breeding plan in mind has been removed. 9 Jan 22.
  • 'It is the pedigree of Nous that became the source for the romantic tales of the Golden Retriever's heritage, one early account claimed he was purchased from a Russian circus trainer in Brighton, another account claimed a cobbler in Brighton, and yet another claimed a gypsy; but Marjoribanks' stud book states Nous was a Flat-coated Retriever bred by Lord Chichester on his nearby Stanmer Park estate.' Same problem as above
 Done, sentence split. 9 Jan 22.
  • This section needs a lot of revision. The prose and sentence-formation is too complicated and long. It includes too much complex detail. This can be confusing for many readers.
Question? I have made a number of amendments, I would appreciate the thoughts of a second reviewer. 9 Jan 22.

Description

Appearance
  • The Kennel Club has been linked too many times. No need to link it here in the first sentence.
 Done. 8 Jan 22.
  • 'The coat's colour can be any shade of cream, yellow or golden, the Kennel Club's breed standard states red or mahogany are prohibited but a few white hairs on the chest are permitted.' Once again, sentence is long and complex
 Done. 8 Jan 22.
  • 'As Golden Retrievers age their coats typically lighten in colour.' Add comma after age.
 Done. 8 Jan 22.
  • This section's prose too has to be made a lot better.
Question? I believe I have cleared it up. 8 Jan 22.
Temperament
  • 'This means that they are typically a year older than Labradors when they are ready to be used as gundogs in the field.'
 Done. 8 Jan 22.
  • 'The Golden Retriever is one of the Western world's most recognisable and poplar companion dog breeds, regularly being ranked in the top five dog breeds by a number of registrations in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada.'
 Not done I am happy to discuss alternate wording but I am not sure that is an improvement. 8 Jan 22.

Popularity and Uses

  • Golden Retriever is not mentioned in reference 13
checkY That is my mistake, I was juggling multiple alternate sources and I clearly selected the wrong one, it is interesting that it contradicts other sources. I have added a new source. 8 Jan 22.
  • 'Compared to other retriever breeds, the Golden Retriever is not considered a particularly strong swimmer, because of their long coats they tend to sit quite low in the water and they are considered less suited as a wildfowl hunting dog than it is for retrieving land-based gamebirds like grouse and partridge.' Shorten sentence
 Done. 8 Jan 22.
  • 'One reason the breed is less popular than the Labrador for field use is they are generally slower to mature; when a Golden Retriever is still in basic training a Labrador may have already had a season in the field.' Sentence can be formatted in a better way
 Done. 8 Jan 22.
  • 'Additionally it can be hard for sportsmen to find pups bred from proven working lines because of the far greater numbers Golden Retrievers bred as pets or for the show ring.' Improve.
 Done. 8 Jan 22.

Health

  • Fine after I corrected a couple of minor grammatical errors

Notable Golden Retrievers

  • Put the two different dogs in different bullet points
 Done. 8 Jan 22.

Final Decision

Given the issues raised in the above review, this article requires significant editing and updating before it can be considered again for GA status. I doubt whether this can be done in a few days. Rrefer to other similar good articles as well. So please do re-nominate once all the issues are resolved. Thank You. Kpddg 10:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Fail:

· · ·


This article is failed.

Second opinion requested

I feel a second review is warranted from an experienced editor as no opportunity was afforded to rectify the issues raised. Per discussion at WT:Good article nominations#Second opinion requested: Golden Retriever I have reopened this review. Cavalryman (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

I have made significant amendments to the article to rectify the issues raised by the previous reviewer. On their TP they have committed to not review any more GANs until they have gained some experience on the project . Cavalryman (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC).
I think you should simply open a new nomination: insert a fresh nomination template as if you would nominate it for the first time, and change the page parameter to "2" so that it is on a separate page. The way you do it now is out of process and might cause technical problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack, I agree that would probably be the easiest course of action, but per the discussion at WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Another new reviewer causing problems (about the same reviewer) I feel that would be endorsing the first review. So, as with Talk:George H. W. Bush broccoli comments/GA1, I would like this article to be judged on its merits. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC).
Ah I see. I may take this over, and will proceed tomorrow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC).
  • with some infusions of Red Setter, Labrador Retriever and Bloodhound blood. – I'm worried that people may take this literally. It might be safer to reformulate?
 Removed.
  • In 1903 the Kennel Club recorded the first examples, they were recorded in the same register as the Flat-coats. – the prose is not great; at the very least, we need a ";" (or, alternatively, a "–") instead of ","
 Reworked I have reworked the sentence to In 1903 the Kennel Club recorded the first examples, listing them in the same register as Flat-coats.
  • In 1911 a breed club was formed for the breed and they were given a new name, the 'Yellow or Golden Retriever', from this point they were seen as a separate breed from the Flat-coated Retriever – This seems a bit weak. First, it is very unspecific (which breed club? where?), and second, the second part is obviously not correct because the Kennel Club didn't follow it?
 Reworked I have added the breed club’s name and location and added increasingly to the second half of the sentence. It is not unusual for a kennel club to lag a little behind popular understanding but please let me know if you would like it further reworked.
  • In 1920 the 'Yellow or' was dropped from the breed's became known as the 'Golden Retriever' colloquially, or the 'Retriever (Golden)' to the Kennel Club. – Something missing here?
 Reworked I have removed the entire reference to the Kennel Club using an archaic internal naming process, it extends well beyond this breed and I agree, it just adds confusion.
  • Mrs – we usually don't use such attributes in Misplaced Pages.
 Removed, I had thought twice about including it and initially decided to because literally every mention in every source I have seen, both cited here and not included, includes the “Mrs”.
  • One early enthusiast of the breed, Mrs Winifred Charlesworth – this paragraph needs dates.
 Done
  • Golden Retriever's good looks – remove the "good", which is puffery.
 Removed
  • The Canadian Kennel Club recognised the breed in 1927, the American Kennel Club in 1932, the first examples were registered in France in 1934 and Australia in 1937. – In various places, including here after "1932", I think there should be a ; instead of a , because what follows is basically a separate sentence.
 Done
  • suffer the misfortunes – could be more specific: what kind of misfortunes?
 Done have added due to British wartime restrictions on the breeding of larger dogs to the sentence
  • The coat's colour can be any shade of cream, yellow or gold, as they age their coats typically become lighter in colour. – another example where ; is needed instead of ,
 Done
  • Originally only yellow or golden coloured examples were permitted, this excluded many outstanding cream coloured dogs so in 1936 the Kennel Club's standard was amended to include the cream colour – Again interpunctation problems here. To achieve better connection of the sentence parts, you could do something like: "Originally only yellow or golden coloured examples were permitted, but this excluded many outstanding cream coloured dogs, which is why in 1936 the Kennel Club's standard was amended to include the cream colour".
 Reworked, please let me know if you think it needs further reworking.
  • avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
 Fixed, I have reordered the last three sentences making the second paragraph two sentences. I don’t think much would be lost by merging the sentences if you feel that would be an improvement.
  • less suited for wildfowl hunting dog – "dog" too much?
 Removed and reworked that is an obvious error I missed in proof reading.
  • Compared to other retriever breeds, the Golden Retriever is not considered a particularly strong swimmer, due to the breed's long coat they tend to sit quite low in the water when swimming. – Again, either use a ; or reformulate using "because" or similar.
 Reworked.
  • One reason is the breed is generally quite slow to mature, – needs a "that"
 Added.
  • which requires a great deal more maintenance –> "which requires more maintenance" certainly makes the point already
 Removed
  • than that of the Labrador's – no "'s"
 Removed
  • There seems to be a difference between the "American Golden Retriever", "British Golden Retriever", and "Canadian Golden Retriever". I don't find a mention here?
Question? probably the most extensive secondary source cited, Jones & Hamilton, says The Golden Retriever Standard adopted by the British Kennel Club is accepted the world over, except in the U.S.A. and Canada, where a Golden is somewhat larger than in Britain and the cream color is still not allowable, but otherwise is basically the same. I think that is reflected in the article. I have seen some references in unreliable sources and the article before I started rewriting it included large sections about these various lines, but again they were unreliably sourced (or unsourced). Unless I can find a quality secondary source that states these distinctions and terminology exist I think it should be excluded.
  • In conclusion, the article needs a bit of work to reach criterion 1 "well written"; see examples above. But I also think it is not too far from reaching this standard. If you could give the article a copy edit with above concerns in mind, that would be great. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Jens, I think I have addressed all of your points above, additionally Justlettersandnumbers made a number of welcome amendments, please let me know if there is any further aspects you would like addressed. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC).
Thanks for the fixes, looks good now, promoting! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack, thank you very much for undertaking the review and for your excellent points, the article is improved as a result. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

References

  1. Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 237. ISBN 0-88365-302-8.
Categories: