This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
209.121.198.170 - It might be a name for a manoeuvre in MCF, however "back up" is much clearer than "do the robot". Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be something like "... to back up as the handler moves forward, known as doing the robot, ...". Also, linking to robot is not helpful. Sfaiku 10:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree. This section is badly written, badly wiki-linked, and almost senseless. It also includes the absurd and uncited claim that "small dogs are better at hip-hop beats". This article would benefit from attention by some person with both experience in freestyle and knowledge of how wikipedia links are formed. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The whole "Freestyle for fun" section needs cleaning up. Writing style is too goofy and very unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. I will give the original author a chance to fix it before I do it myself.
75.181.45.206 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
... it's only one sentence, riddled with grammar mistakes, and doesn't actually say anything. Should it be removed? Or at least have some useful information? 65.100.0.172 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Months have gone by since the above comment and nothing has been done to upgrade this pathetic article. A shame, really, but Wikipedia is only as good as its contributors make it. -- cat yronwode, not logged in, and not sufficiently expert in this subject to help out, either 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In response to the above feedback I have completed a major copyedit of this article. I suggest it still needs an expert to go through and improve it though, and it needs to be properly referenced. In light of this I left a substantial list of 'external links' at the bottom of the page as these may be helpful to someone looking to rework and reference it. If you do work these into proper references, please remove them from the external links section. --jjron (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply