Talk:Greater Swiss Mountain Dog
|WikiProject Dogs / Breeds||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Switzerland||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
Do not use "SWISSY"
"Swissy" is a common nickname for the breed. Apart from noting this fact in the article, there is no way one can refer to a breed by its (diminutive) nickname when using encyclopedic style. Therefore, please refrain from calling the breed a "Swissy" in this article - it simply does not fit the formal quality of writing that one expects from an encyclopedia article. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
I think the measures of the weight and height have to be checked since they aren't realistic and give a false image of this breed: the correct weight should be between 60-70kg(male) and 50-60kg(female) whereas the height at the shoulders is between 65-72cm(male) and 60-68cm(female).
I suspect there may be some factual errors under the "All-breed club recognition" heading, specifically with regards to dates given for some recognitions. It claims that the AKC gave this breed provisional recognition in 1999, yet full recognition in 1995? This seems backwards - anyone who knows the correct dates please fix this. Also, the past tense is used to refer to an event that hasn't yet occurred, or else another wrong date has been given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I pared down the number of images down from five to two. The article is very short, so it does not need more than two images. Also the text was really crowded and unreadable between the images. --Coaster1983 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is a gallery of pictures on Commons.
There is a proposal that Temperament sections be eliminated as they usually contain very similar vague and unreferenced platitudes. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Temperament sections.--Hafwyn (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The massive section regarding health problems seems out of place in this article; urinary incontinence, for example, is not specific enough to the breed to warrant an entire subsection. If the breed has relatively few health problems for its size, I don't understand why they're expounded upon in such great detail. Most of that information can be gleaned from the pages belonging to the diseases and disorders themselves.
I feel similarly about the appearance section. In nearly every sentence, there's a citation pointing to the same reference -- is this really necessary? I appreciate how detailed the article is in certain areas, but large chunks of the breed standard don't need to be included.
- I tried to make the article on the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog as comprehensive as I, as an owner, was looking for when I researched the breed. I don't feel that the health issues are overemphasized.
I counted over 10 references used in the appearance section. The dog anatomy diagram was included to illustrate where various body parts are located; there was no claim it is a diagram of a GWMD. The second illustration shows a dog used as a draft animal; again there is no claim it is a GSMD.. I wasn't able to find a quality photo of a GSMD used as a draft animal.Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't feel that images not specific to the breed are really necessary to include. Any breed could make use of the anatomy chart, for example, and any Sennenhund could use the carting image (which would be more reasonable, in my opinion), but I feel like that would be overkill. I think the internal links do a good enough job of explaining these topics further if someone's interested.
- Ditto with the health problems -- I think a summary of the issues the breed is known for, with internal links to their individual articles, would do the job just as well. Brief descriptions would be less intimidating and less off-topic than large
- Finally, certain subsections in the Appearance section do cite the same reference after almost every sentence -- take a look at "Head" and you'll see what I mean. There are large chunks of the AKC's Swissie standard throughout that are barely reworded. Cutting them down a little bit, rephrasing everything, and removing the excessive references would probably do a lot of good for the section.
- By the way, I see references to blue tricolor and rust bicolor Swissies -- I've never seen nor heard of any evidence of this. As far as I've known, the four SMD breeds only come in black tricolor (possibly with the occasional blue eyed dog popping up, although this is very rare and could be the result of outcrossing). Is there any proof of this, other than what that source says? If no images exist, I'm a little bit skeptical... I know they're listed as DQs/acceptable for alternate registration with the AKC, but like I said, I've never seen any evidence these colors really pop up in the breed. Outcrosses, perhaps? I'll try to look for images later today.
- It's definitely a good article, one which outshines its fellow Sennenhund :) -- Anndelion (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anndelion, I see that you are focusing on improving dog articles. I almost totally revamped this article after I saw how incomplete it was for my needs. I was writing mostly geology articles, so writing a dog article was new territory for me. Please do go ahead and make the changes you feel would make this article conform with other dog articles. Thank you for your interest and committment to dogs!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)