Talk:Belgian Shepherd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: William Harris (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cavalryman, I shall commence the review. Discussion will take place below the following assessment table. William Harris (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

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.	Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Done
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.	Done
	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).	Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	Done
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Done Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicates that there exists a 93% match of content with crsystems.co.uk/docs/d9f4f5-belgian-shepherd-types - a mirror site - and a 13% match of content with FCI Breed Standard, as could be expected. Dab Solver indicates no disambiguation issues. Checklinks indicates possible issues downloading from the srsh website, however all 4 breed standards were found to be downloadable.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Done Broadly matches WPDOGS Recommended Article Structure.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Done
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Done
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.	Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Meets the requirements of a Good Article. William Harris (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

"Whilst" is formal British English, however you might consider changing this to the more widely used "While". Either way, one of our North American cousins is going to change it soon. William Harris (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I will make the change, they’re not a British breed so the language should be neutral. Cavalryman (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Regarding the text "A minority of kennel clubs, most notably the American Kennel Club, recognise the four varieties as separate breeds". Is this only the AKC, or are there others which have not been specified in the reference? William Harris (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Have just confirmed, that source only mentions the AKC, so I will amend the sentence. Cavalryman (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Please amend the lede as well, as this is a fact - only one KC recognises 4 separate breeds. William Harris (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, done. Cavalryman (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC).