Talk:Pug/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post queries below. Let's get to it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd add a brief description to the lead (i.e. what it looks like in one or two sentences)

• I've moved the citations out of the lead and added a little bit about the description. Miyagawa (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Breeding preference goes to "button" Pugs - what is a button pug?

• Glad you noticed that, I'd missed it. Looked into it and added a couple of lines from the same reference. Miyagawa (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note on foo dog could do with a reference, I'll leave a tag

• Edited and added reference. Miyagawa (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Try and mimimise switching bwtween singular and plural "pug/pugs" if possible. I was going to do the one in temperament section but I have to get off the computer for a bit. Back later.

• Gone through and tried to reduce the number of plurals except where absolutely necessary. Miyagawa (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, where was I? Some more....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The breed has appeared several times as footnotes to history. - vague sentence the meaning of which I am unsure.

• Removed the line, it just seemed like some unnecessary fluff. Miyagawa (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• They were painted by Goya in Spain, dressed in matching jackets and pantaloons sat by the coachmen of the rich in Italy, and in Germany and France. - in Germany and France...what? There should be a verb here I think.

• Done a copy edit and removed "and in Germany and France" after going back in the article history and finding that the line never had a verb afterwards like it sounds like it should. Miyagawa (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm curious on how the dimensions and attributes of the pug have changed over the centuries. so some discussion would be good in the Description or History sections, if possible.

• Added some information about the size change under 18th and 19th centuries in history. Miyagawa (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, some info on closely related ancestral or descendant breeds.

• Added a line with reference regards the Pekinese, and added a note to the lead about the Pekinese and King Charles Spaniel. Miyagawa (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• infobox image needs WP:ALT text, but not a deal-breaker...

Overall:

Pass or Fail: I suspect that given the breed's history, it could be fleshed out more for an atempt at FAC, but it's fine for GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The breed history is wrong as shown. If the breed has been known since the Shang dynasty then the date given for that Dynasty is wrong. The Shang Dynasty was from between 1766 BC - 1046 BC,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty) depending on which scholar's method you use. This puts the Pug as a considerably older breed than the article states.

As I could be considered "biased" if I made the changes, would someone else check this and make the changes if appropriate please?Essengee12 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)