Talk:German Shepherd/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm currently wrapping up a detailed review of this article (my first, incidentally). My initial impression is that the article has some problems with neutrality and may not meet Good Article criteria yet. I will explain when I have the full review posted, so please stay tuned. Morrand (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. I hope this is helpful.Morrand (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few copyedit things to be done with the current article, but on the whole I think it now meets the Good Article Criteria. I can take care of the copyedit points myself, and will do so. Pass. (There is, of course, still room for improvement: the article is not quite Featured-quality yet but it's on its way.) Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Review

Although this article is close to good status, it isn't quite there yet. There are some problems with reaching a neutral tone in the article, and some of the images need to be related better to the topic. One image needs to be justified or deleted to correct a fair-use problem. Given these problems, the article is not yet ready to be promoted, but given its overall quality, it is not reasonable to fail it immediately. Therefore, it will be on hold for at least a week to allow time for improvement, with particular attention to the following items (subject to further discussion):

Correct the four run-on sentences identified below, along with any others that may be present and not specifically listed.
Correct or eliminate as many weak references ("it is believed that . . . .", and similar phrasing) as can reasonably be corrected.
Improve coverage of the breed's reputation for aggression, with a focus on maintaining overall neutrality. This may include properly-sourced quotes or information to refute the reputation, but should include at least some explanation that the reputation exists, and any basis for it.
Provide an acceptable fair-use rationale (at the image page) for attaching the photograph of Geraldine Dodge to this article, or remove the image from the article entirely.
Rewrite and expand the photo captions as required in order to connect them more definitely with the text.

Writing Style

The prose is mostly clear, and grammar and spelling are good, but there are some style problems. For example, ". . . the breed is among the top most registered in most registries." The phrasing most registered in most registries sounds redundant. Could this be rephrased to something like, ". . . the breed is among the most registered."?

Resolved as proposed. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to "The Kennel Club," though they seem to be technically correct as that is the name of the organization, should specify the UK Kennel Club in order to avoid confusion with others. One photo refers to "The Kennel Club (UK)" and that may demonstrate the best solution.

Resolved by explicit reference to the English Kennel Club with appropriate wikilink. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several comma splices in the article. In each case, and I am quoting my old grammar text here, there are two main clauses linked by only a comma. For example:

"When the English Kennel Club first accepted registrations for the breed in 1919 fifty-four dogs were registered, by 1926 this number had inflated to over 8,000."
"The breed was named as such due its original purpose of assisting shepherds in herding and protecting sheep, at the time all other herding dogs in Germany were referred to by this name — they thus became known as Altdeutscher Schäferhunds or Old German Shepherd Dogs.
"The breed was officially renamed by the Kennel Club to 'Alsatian Wolf Dog', this name also was adopted by many other international kennel clubs."
"The ears are large and stand erect, open at the front and parallel, they often are pulled back during movement."

In each case, the run-on sentence should either be split up, or one main clause subordinated to the other, in order to improve clarity. For example, write, "The ears stand large and erect, open at the front and parallel. They often are pulled back during movement." Or, "The ears . . . the front and parallel, but they often are pulled back . . . ."

Resolved, generally, but I think there are still a few tweaks to be made to the punctuation to clean the sentences up. Not a serious problem, though; I can take a stab at it. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section unambiguously defines the subject of the article. It does not establish the notability of the subject in the first sentence, but it does later in the lead paragraph. The lead includes citations; perhaps, more than necessary, but this is not a fault (per WP:LEADCITE). The article is around 24 KB (3150 words) for which a two-paragraph lead would be appropriate per WP:LEAD. However, the current lead seems to do the job adequately and wouldn't disqualify the article for GA status.

The layout is acceptable. The use of sections and subsections in "History" is good, but some subsections under "Description" seem too short, and it may be better to combine those. "Temperament", "Health," etc. are short, but probably justifiably so because they are distinct topics. Appendices are in correct order per MoS. Images are positioned well, though from "Description" through "Health" there seem to be so many that they are out of position with the text.

There is some jargon, though generally linked out to a definition (withers, for example) and in the context is appropriate (in this case, as an indirect quote of a Kennel Club standard).

"It is believed that careless breeding has promoted disease and other defects," without stating by whom, is not a good construction. The guide at WP:WEASEL is a wreck right now, so I can't point to that in good faith, but its basic point—that phrases like "it is believed that . . ." tend to undermine neutrality—still seems to be valid.

Resolved with room for improvement. The current wording ("Critics believe that . . .") is not an enormous improvement on its own here; however, in combination with the citation, it works. This is one area for future expansion and improvement: summarize the positions on both sides in slightly more detail. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy

This article has many, many references. The reference format closely follows the style guide for shortened footnotes. Just about every sentence--in some cases, every phrase--is cited in-line from somewhere, and while that is encouraged by the Manual of Style, condensing the footnotes would help improve readability. One exception to the ample referencing is at the end of the "In Popular Culture" section, where there are no citations given. There are wikilinks to the appropriate articles, though, so that suffices.

I did not find any original research in the article, and the regular editors seem to be actively eliminating it as it comes up. With all of the citations given, there seems to be no room for original research anyway.

Broad Coverage

The article defines the breed and gives some examples of its importance, which address most aspects of the topic (but see below under "Neutrality"). It stays close to topic, with little to no wandering of focus. Summary style is used well to avoid excursions (for example, by linking out to the dysplasia articles rather than explaining dysplasia in this article).

Neutrality

The article does not appear to be acceptably neutral. For example: ". . . the appendage 'wolf dog' caused discontent after media capitalised on the name to run a scare campaign advertising that 'half-wolves' had been let loose in Britain." It seems true that the dogs are not half-wolves (as explained further in the Talk page) but as worded (capitalised, scare campaign, advertising) this is not acceptably neutral. An alternative: ". . . as the name, 'wolf dog,' led many people to believe that Alsatian wolf dogs were wolf-dog hybrids" (assuming the reference supports this interpretation).

Current version gets around this point by complete elimination of the reason for the name change. This is probably not the ideal solution, and I think an (NPOV) explanation of the change is appropriate to the article. That said, the current version is OK. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There also needs to be some coverage of the German Shepherd's reputation for aggression, given how widely it seems to be believed. For example, Cesar Millan (in Cesar's Way) lists German Shepherd Dogs among the breeds often found in shelters after being abandoned by dog-fighters. Even though the reputation is most likely undeserved, it does need to be addressed in the article body, just as it was addressed on the Talk page. The most reputable source that I could find (with a quick search) saying that German Shepherd Dogs are dangerous is the Petcare Information and Advisory Service of Australia (see [1]). (It would be fair, however, to then explain that GSDs are not inherently dangerous: "Aggression and attacks on people are largely due to poor breeding, handling and training." Dog Breed Information, [2])

In short, some of the comments in the article Talk, suggesting that the article is tilted towards fans of the breed, appear to be justified, and this is the main concern that keeps me from promoting the article to GA status right now.

The "Aggression" section is about right for addressing this criticism. It is a little sparse right now but seems to touch the main points, which is all the GA criteria requires of it. There is a little copyediting to be done in this section but nothing significant. I'll call this one resolved, noting that there is still plenty of room for expansion. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

The article is acceptably stable. Most edits in the past thirty days seem to have been vandalism and subsequent reverts. There has been some editorial debate on the talk page, but it does not seem to have escalated to edit warring. On the whole it appears that the article is being edited in a controlled and deliberate manner, which speaks well for its continued stability and its ability to hold Good Article status once it achieves it.

Images

One image is troublesome from a fair-use standpoint. The photo of Geraldine Dodge needs a better fair-use rationale than "low res, no revenue loss" (as given on the image page); to justify a copyrighted photo, it really needs to cover all ten points listed at WP:FU and also needs a rationale that fits under the fair-use criteria there, not just for the article on Geraldine Dodge but also for its appearance here. The image page also doesn't seem to meet WP:IUP because it does not fully explain the ultimate source of the image. As indicated in the copyright template boilerplate as currently worded, use of the image in the article on Ms. Dodge may qualify as fair use; use of that image elsewhere (such as here) may not. There may not be an easy solution to this problem that will allow the photo to stay.

Resolved. Image has been dropped from the article. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the photos accompanying the article are both relevant to the topic and fairly used. Some captions need improvement in order to link the image to the text it illustrates. The first two pictures have good captions that describe both the picture and its relevance to the text, as do the last two. Others do not: the caption, "The Kennel Club (UK) standard. . . ." does not explain how the picture illustrates this, and is not tied into the body text. Ideally the Kennel Club standard being illustrated should be mentioned and explained in the body, if the caption is left as is, or some other method of linking image and text used. Similarly, the image of the child and dog is itself good (not to say "cute,") but needs to be tied back to the article with a longer caption, such as, "Shepherds bond well with children they know," which is taken directly from the text.

The two images noted have been well improved. I notice that the photo of the Shepherd's face is now being used in a more general way than previously: this is fine, since it goes from illustrating something not in the text, to something that needs illustration. The dog-and-child photo's caption is now tied into the text. Resolved. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments

I notice that this article was last reviewed for WikiProject: Dogs on August 13, 2008, and the B-quality rating was maintained at that time. Since this is a recent nomination for GA, it's entirely plausible that the article has been much improved since then, but the two ratings should be reconciled if this does get promoted. I haven't used the WikiProject's guidelines in this review, but would certainly welcome commentary along those lines from any of the project's reviewers.

I'm assuming someone closer to the Project can put in for a re-evaluation if that's warranted. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]