Talk:Bedlington Terrier/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will review this article. I will leave some comments now, and maybe finish later today, or tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the colour range should be mentioned in the intro?


 * Under history, you might reverse the alignment of the two pictures, since individuals in images should face the text, not away form it, per the manual of style. Then you cna remove the "clear" tag, as the following title won't be affected.


 * There seems to be some link errors under Classification and standards in the infobox.
 * I couldn't figure out why this was happening, as the .doc links seem to work in other articles, but I switched the link to the same information at a different source and it seems to be working now.


 * There are many direct quotes under Temperament which should be attributed in the text, since these are the opinion of some writers, not necessarily fact, and some are a bit far fetched and hyperbolic. "Rather die than succumb"? "When two Bedlington terriers meet only one survives the battle."?
 * I removed "When two Bedlington terriers meet..." from the article entirely, and clarified the "rather die than succumb".


 * The least controversial quoted statements could be paraphrased, rather than quoted.
 * Or at least, I didn't see anything else


 * It is better to attribute a claim directly to a writer than say "it has been said/claimed/argued" and so on. You do this throughout the article, and that should be changed most places.
 * This is a bad habit of mine. I believe I caught all the instances of this and corrected them.


 * The killer mentality of this dog is overstated quite a bit, even though a single last line questions this. Would be nice with some balance.
 * I've expanded that line into a paragraph, and I can add even more if you'd like.


 * When specific people are mentioned, try to give their name, instead of just "a man", "a breeder", etc.
 * Another bad habit. I believe I fixed all the instances of this.


 * The last line under mortality needs a source.
 * Sourced.


 * Is there a reason why there has to be so much white space after the content overview? There is no problem if infoboxes intrude on the text.
 * I was trying to keep that first image from pinning text between the infobox and itself. The tag has been removed.


 * The image of pups has no source or author info, could be replaced by another photo.
 * Image replaced.


 * I think that's it from me so far. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it all looks nice now, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: