Talk:Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Valereee in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Starting review --valereee (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I've put a cn at Even after registering Stump, Sommer thought he might not take him, and would decide based on how good he looked in the day or two before the flight to get there in Westminster section, as I couldn't find this in either the three sources for the previous sentence or the source for the following sentence. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | It's not required in GA, and I don't know how to add it in an infobox without the empty parameter already in place, but can we get an alt in here for accessibility? |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
- Hey, Hunter Kahn! I'm delighted to review a dog bio! I'm not very familiar with the show dog world (do have a bit of familiarity with show cats) so apologies in advance if some of my questions are colored by that.
- I'm curious about the fact Stump was born in 1998, owned by two women who live hundreds of miles apart, and went to live with handler Sommer in 2003. Is this a common progression in the show dog world? Do we know when Ruggles/Dowd purchased him and where he lived before going to Sommer? I ask because I'm wondering if this is information that would be of use to readers, some of whom may be as ignorant as I am. --valereee (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- This might be of help, and makes me wonder if Scott Sommer (dog handler) is worth redlinking: The Man on the End of the Leash and Meet the top dog handler.--valereee (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- These are excellent questions and I wish I could find the answers myself, but unfortunately, in my extensive searching for sources for this article, I wasn't able to find those exact answers, and I obviously can't speculate. I do agree, however, that Scott Sommer probably should be redlinked, and I've done so. — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- This might be of help, and makes me wonder if Scott Sommer (dog handler) is worth redlinking: The Man on the End of the Leash and Meet the top dog handler.--valereee (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- including 12 in the intensive care unit of the Texas A&M University's hospital may need rewording for clarification; on the first read I thought you were saying the dog was in a human hospital, which ? But I would assume the small animal hospital has its own ICU? --valereee (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I had worded it this way because the previous sentence refers to the Texas A&M University Small Animal Hospital, so I had meant for this sentence to simply refer back to that hospital. But to avoid confusion, I've changed this reference to the Small Animal Hospital... — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- including 12 in the intensive care unit of the Texas A&M University's hospital may need rewording for clarification; on the first read I thought you were saying the dog was in a human hospital, which ? But I would assume the small animal hospital has its own ICU? --valereee (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Prose issue last sentence of W's Best in Show: Two other dogs co-owned by Dowd placed in the year's Westminster Stump made appearances on MSNBC and such television programs as Today, The Early Show, The Martha Stewart Show after his victory. Maybe it's supposed to be two sentences? --valereee (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, should've been two sentences. I've fixed it.
- Prose issue last sentence of W's Best in Show: Two other dogs co-owned by Dowd placed in the year's Westminster Stump made appearances on MSNBC and such television programs as Today, The Early Show, The Martha Stewart Show after his victory. Maybe it's supposed to be two sentences? --valereee (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Clarity issue, first sentence of later life: However, some travel was planned for Stump representing the club What club? --valereee (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- That should be the Moore County Kennel Club. I've added that reference. — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Clarity issue, first sentence of later life: However, some travel was planned for Stump representing the club What club? --valereee (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Continuity issue: info about pups currently in serious illness section, probably belongs with info about grandpups in later life and death section. --valereee (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- The reason I have this in this section is because the timeframe in which he sired the pups occurred between the period of his serious illness and injury. So chronologically, it belongs here, as opposed to "later life," which is after his Best in Show win. I think it works as is, but if you feel this needs restructuring though, let me know and we can try to figure it out... — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, I see your point, but having them separated had me going back and forth and wondering why -- perhaps a separate section 'Progeny'? --valereee (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know that I think a separate Progeny section is necessary, but I did try moving the reference to the pups to the later section as you originally suggested, and I think it worked fine. Let me know if you agree. — Hunter Kahn 02:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- That works for me. FWIW, I have no objection to you changing it back if, after the GA review is over, you still disagree with that placement. For me it feels more cohesive to have the info together, but this is at the level of personal preferences. --valereee (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- The reason I have this in this section is because the timeframe in which he sired the pups occurred between the period of his serious illness and injury. So chronologically, it belongs here, as opposed to "later life," which is after his Best in Show win. I think it works as is, but if you feel this needs restructuring though, let me know and we can try to figure it out... — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Continuity issue: info about pups currently in serious illness section, probably belongs with info about grandpups in later life and death section. --valereee (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure about the in popular culture section. Ruth Westheimer just was pleased a geezer won, for instance. Not really 'popular culture'. Maybe 'celebrity fans,' but it seems like minutia. Ditto the Yankees president. And Colbert made a joke about something that was in the news. Meh, I think I'd cut this section. --valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I've cut it. — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure about the in popular culture section. Ruth Westheimer just was pleased a geezer won, for instance. Not really 'popular culture'. Maybe 'celebrity fans,' but it seems like minutia. Ditto the Yankees president. And Colbert made a joke about something that was in the news. Meh, I think I'd cut this section. --valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I made a few copyedits. Please check them to make sure I haven't 'corrected' something that wasn't incorrect. :) --valereee (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think your edits look fine. Thanks for the review {U|Valereee}}! — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I made a few copyedits. Please check them to make sure I haven't 'corrected' something that wasn't incorrect. :) --valereee (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm wondering about a minor inconsistency w/re how quickly he retired. In the lead it says "immediatly" after Westminster, but in the section it mentions several things he did and that he accumulated (after the win?) 440,000 miles from Continental. Then after mentioning all that travel and work he was still doing, the next paragraph says he retired "very shortly" after the win. --valereee (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- He was doing some traveling after the Best in Show win, but he was "retired" in the sense that he wasn't participating in any more dog shows. The traveling was more a publicity thing, but his show career was over. I've removed the "immediately" from the lede though to avoid confusion. Let me know if you think any additional rewording is necessary. — Hunter Kahn 14:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Two remaining comments in the table, then I think we're good to go! --valereee (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- He was doing some traveling after the Best in Show win, but he was "retired" in the sense that he wasn't participating in any more dog shows. The traveling was more a publicity thing, but his show career was over. I've removed the "immediately" from the lede though to avoid confusion. Let me know if you think any additional rewording is necessary. — Hunter Kahn 14:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm wondering about a minor inconsistency w/re how quickly he retired. In the lead it says "immediatly" after Westminster, but in the section it mentions several things he did and that he accumulated (after the win?) 440,000 miles from Continental. Then after mentioning all that travel and work he was still doing, the next paragraph says he retired "very shortly" after the win. --valereee (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to add the alt text to the infobox image but I'm at a bit of a loss on how to do it since it doesn't seem to be an option in the Infobox Animal template. Any thoughts on this? Regarding the sentence you put the CN tag on, the three citation tags you looked at are not the sources for that, but rather citation #32 (the Houston Chronicle story from 2/18/2009) is the source for it. That's an offline source, so I've copy-and-pasted the text that backs up that sentence so you can see it for yourself: "Still, Sommer was taking other dogs to Westminster, and he registered Stump on a lark. He figured he might take Stump, he might not, it depended on how the dog looked and felt a day or two before it was time to get on the plane." — Hunter Kahn 00:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- No worries on the alt tag, I asked because I didn't know how to do it either in an infobox that didn't have a parameter for it. :) And re: that assertion, only dropped the tag to make it easier for you to find it, not because I didn't believe it. I just wanted to cite the source, which I've done. I'm passing this now. --valereee (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)