Talk:Pit bull/GA2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Firsfron of Ronchester 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Where is the infobox similar to that of other Good Articles on other dog breeds? I'm looking specifically at English Cocker Spaniel, English Springer Spaniel, German Shepherd Dog, etc. All of the dog breeds seem to use them. Even horse breeds use them; see Breton (horse). You can use these articles to see what other editors to similar GAs have done to help fill them out.

It's not my project/article so I can't comment on the other two sections, but this article is on a dog type rather than a dog breed which is what the existing infobox is for. I just had a look and I can't see an infobox that would do the job. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the lead of this article is far too short. Please expand it. The WP:LEAD should summarize the rest of the article. There is no way that the three sentences in this lead summarize this entire article.

Why is every source in this article a web site? There are no books, and only a few online papers. It makes me concerned that the article is not as broad in coverage as it could be, as if every source came from a Google search. The number of references indicates you've been very thorough, however. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Aside from Miyagawa's brief note here, is there any hope that my concerns will be addressed? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd help out. I've added some book references, although beyond the summaries of the three breeds the vast majority of the information is media and website based. I've also expanded the lead and added an image to the right side of it (it looked a bit weird and empty without it). Miyagawa (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just fail this personally. Miyagawa's done some work, but the primary article writers haven't touched it, so no reason to keep on waiting for them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly, done. The primary editor is gone, and the additional comments have also been neglected. I was hoping someone would come along and finish up this article, but it doesn't look like it will happen. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article, figured I would poke around...

Blue link Molosser
Remove the second internal link to American Staffordshire Terrier, in the history heading and in the caption (remove all the repeated blue links in the article for that matter).
"This methodology is subject to several potential sources of error: some fatal attacks may not have been reported; a study might not find all of the relevant news reports; and the potential for misidentification of dog breeds,[3] although courts in the United States[30][31] and Canada[32][33] have ruled that expert identification, when using published breed standards, is sufficient for the enforcement of breed-specific legislation"--This sentence is awfully long, also, it shouldn't be broken up by semicolons, commas will do.
"dog bite-related fatalities"--This phrase gets a little repetitive, try, "death's attributed to dog bites" or something for several of the occasions where the phrase is used.
In a general sense, it seems like too much of this article is attributed to their effects on humans, whether it be positive or negative, try navigating toward the biological side of the animal(s), how about a taxonomy box?

Good luck in GA, --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]