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

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cavalryman. I will be be GA reviewing this article in the coming days. Please contact me for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section-wise Assessment

Lead Section

• Lead section is fine

History

• Put 'later to become Baron Tweedmouth' in brackets

 Done although I am keen to the thoughts of a second reviewer. 9 Jan 22.

• 'Prior to the publication Marjoribanks' meticulously' Why is there an apostrophe after his name?

 Removed, it has been reworded. 9 Jan 22.

• 'Prior to the publication Marjoribanks' meticulously maintained and very detailed stud book in 1952, a number of romantic tales were published stating the breed descends from among other things a troupe of Russian circus dogs that performed in Brighton in the 1860s, but the records tell a different story.' Revise this sentence; it is difficult to understand

 Done, I have cut half of the sentence away. 9 Jan 22.

• 'In the 1860s Marjoribanks set out with a complicated line breeding plan in mind to create what to his mind was the ultimate breed of retriever at his Scottish estate Guisachan.' This sentence is again too long and complicated.

 Done, with a complicated line breeding plan in mind has been removed. 9 Jan 22.

• 'It is the pedigree of Nous that became the source for the romantic tales of the Golden Retriever's heritage, one early account claimed he was purchased from a Russian circus trainer in Brighton, another account claimed a cobbler in Brighton, and yet another claimed a gypsy; but Marjoribanks' stud book states Nous was a Flat-coated Retriever bred by Lord Chichester on his nearby Stanmer Park estate.' Same problem as above

 Done, sentence split. 9 Jan 22.

• This section needs a lot of revision. The prose and sentence-formation is too complicated and long. It includes too much complex detail. This can be confusing for many readers.

? I have made a number of amendments, I would appreciate the thoughts of a second reviewer. 9 Jan 22.

Description

Appearance

• The Kennel Club has been linked too many times. No need to link it here in the first sentence.

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

• 'The coat's colour can be any shade of cream, yellow or golden, the Kennel Club's breed standard states red or mahogany are prohibited but a few white hairs on the chest are permitted.' Once again, sentence is long and complex

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

• 'As Golden Retrievers age their coats typically lighten in colour.' Add comma after age.

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

• This section's prose too has to be made a lot better.

? I believe I have cleared it up. 8 Jan 22.

Temperament

• 'This means that they are typically a year older than Labradors when they are ready to be used as gundogs in the field.'

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

• 'The Golden Retriever is one of the Western world's most recognisable and poplar companion dog breeds, regularly being ranked in the top five dog breeds by a number of registrations in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada.'

 Not done I am happy to discuss alternate wording but I am not sure that is an improvement. 8 Jan 22.

Popularity and Uses

• Golden Retriever is not mentioned in reference 13

Y That is my mistake, I was juggling multiple alternate sources and I clearly selected the wrong one, it is interesting that it contradicts other sources. I have added a new source. 8 Jan 22.

• 'Compared to other retriever breeds, the Golden Retriever is not considered a particularly strong swimmer, because of their long coats they tend to sit quite low in the water and they are considered less suited as a wildfowl hunting dog than it is for retrieving land-based gamebirds like grouse and partridge.' Shorten sentence

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

• 'One reason the breed is less popular than the Labrador for field use is they are generally slower to mature; when a Golden Retriever is still in basic training a Labrador may have already had a season in the field.' Sentence can be formatted in a better way

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

• 'Additionally it can be hard for sportsmen to find pups bred from proven working lines because of the far greater numbers Golden Retrievers bred as pets or for the show ring.' Improve.

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

Health

• Fine after I corrected a couple of minor grammatical errors

Notable Golden Retrievers

• Put the two different dogs in different bullet points

 Done. 8 Jan 22.

Final Decision

Given the issues raised in the above review, this article requires significant editing and updating before it can be considered again for GA status. I doubt whether this can be done in a few days. Rrefer to other similar good articles as well. So please do re-nominate once all the issues are resolved. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Fail:
· · ·

This article is failed.

Second opinion requested

I feel a second review is warranted from an experienced editor as no opportunity was afforded to rectify the issues raised. Per discussion at WT:Good article nominations#Second opinion requested: Golden Retriever I have reopened this review. Cavalryman (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I have made significant amendments to the article to rectify the issues raised by the previous reviewer. On their TP they have committed to not review any more GANs until they have gained some experience on the project [1]. Cavalryman (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I think you should simply open a new nomination: insert a fresh nomination template as if you would nominate it for the first time, and change the page parameter to "2" so that it is on a separate page. The way you do it now is out of process and might cause technical problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, I agree that would probably be the easiest course of action, but per the discussion at WT:Good article nominations/Archive 25#Another new reviewer causing problems (about the same reviewer) I feel that would be endorsing the first review. So, as with Talk:George H. W. Bush broccoli comments/GA1, I would like this article to be judged on its merits. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Ah I see. I may take this over, and will proceed tomorrow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• with some infusions of Red Setter, Labrador Retriever and Bloodhound blood. – I'm worried that people may take this literally. It might be safer to reformulate?

 Removed.

• In 1903 the Kennel Club recorded the first examples, they were recorded in the same register as the Flat-coats. – the prose is not great; at the very least, we need a ";" (or, alternatively, a "–") instead of ","

 Reworked I have reworked the sentence to In 1903 the Kennel Club recorded the first examples, listing them in the same register as Flat-coats.

• In 1911 a breed club was formed for the breed and they were given a new name, the 'Yellow or Golden Retriever', from this point they were seen as a separate breed from the Flat-coated Retriever – This seems a bit weak. First, it is very unspecific (which breed club? where?), and second, the second part is obviously not correct because the Kennel Club didn't follow it?

 Reworked I have added the breed club’s name and location and added increasingly to the second half of the sentence. It is not unusual for a kennel club to lag a little behind popular understanding but please let me know if you would like it further reworked.

• In 1920 the 'Yellow or' was dropped from the breed's became known as the 'Golden Retriever' colloquially, or the 'Retriever (Golden)' to the Kennel Club.[5] – Something missing here?

 Reworked I have removed the entire reference to the Kennel Club using an archaic internal naming process, it extends well beyond this breed and I agree, it just adds confusion.

• Mrs – we usually don't use such attributes in Wikipedia.

 Removed, I had thought twice about including it and initially decided to because literally every mention in every source I have seen, both cited here and not included, includes the “Mrs”.

• One early enthusiast of the breed, Mrs Winifred Charlesworth – this paragraph needs dates.

 Done

• Golden Retriever's good looks – remove the "good", which is puffery.

 Removed

• The Canadian Kennel Club recognised the breed in 1927, the American Kennel Club in 1932, the first examples were registered in France in 1934 and Australia in 1937. – In various places, including here after "1932", I think there should be a ; instead of a , because what follows is basically a separate sentence.

 Done

• suffer the misfortunes – could be more specific: what kind of misfortunes?

 Done have added due to British wartime restrictions on the breeding of larger dogs to the sentence

• The coat's colour can be any shade of cream, yellow or gold, as they age their coats typically become lighter in colour. – another example where ; is needed instead of ,

 Done

• Originally only yellow or golden coloured examples were permitted, this excluded many outstanding cream coloured dogs so in 1936 the Kennel Club's standard was amended to include the cream colour – Again interpunctation problems here. To achieve better connection of the sentence parts, you could do something like: "Originally only yellow or golden coloured examples were permitted, but this excluded many outstanding cream coloured dogs, which is why in 1936 the Kennel Club's standard was amended to include the cream colour".

 Reworked, please let me know if you think it needs further reworking.

• avoid single-sentence paragraphs.

 Fixed, I have reordered the last three sentences making the second paragraph two sentences. I don’t think much would be lost by merging the sentences if you feel that would be an improvement.

• less suited for wildfowl hunting dog – "dog" too much?

 Removed and reworked that is an obvious error I missed in proof reading.

• Compared to other retriever breeds, the Golden Retriever is not considered a particularly strong swimmer, due to the breed's long coat they tend to sit quite low in the water when swimming.[7] – Again, either use a ; or reformulate using "because" or similar.

 Reworked.

• One reason is the breed is generally quite slow to mature, – needs a "that"

 Added.

• which requires a great deal more maintenance –> "which requires more maintenance" certainly makes the point already

 Removed

• than that of the Labrador's – no "'s"

 Removed

• There seems to be a difference between the "American Golden Retriever", "British Golden Retriever", and "Canadian Golden Retriever". I don't find a mention here?

? probably the most extensive secondary source cited, Jones & Hamilton,^[1] says The Golden Retriever Standard adopted by the British Kennel Club is accepted the world over, except in the U.S.A. and Canada, where a Golden is somewhat larger than in Britain and the cream color is still not allowable, but otherwise is basically the same. I think that is reflected in the article. I have seen some references in unreliable sources and the article before I started rewriting it [2] included large sections about these various lines, but again they were unreliably sourced (or unsourced). Unless I can find a quality secondary source that states these distinctions and terminology exist I think it should be excluded.

• In conclusion, the article needs a bit of work to reach criterion 1 "well written"; see examples above. But I also think it is not too far from reaching this standard. If you could give the article a copy edit with above concerns in mind, that would be great. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens, I think I have addressed all of your points above, additionally Justlettersandnumbers made a number of welcome amendments, please let me know if there is any further aspects you would like addressed. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, looks good now, promoting! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, thank you very much for undertaking the review and for your excellent points, the article is improved as a result. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]