Talk:Norfolk Spaniel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The link to Springer Spaniel in the second paragraph of the History section is a dab link. It seems that you mean the link to go to more of an overall description page, though, rather than either the English or Welsh breeds. Have you thought about writing an overall page, like you did for Cocker Spaniel?
 * It's on my "to do" list - especially as in some cases like this a link to the specific breed isn't appropriate as the article is trying to link to the old type of springer or springing spaniel that pre-dated the English and Welsh Springer breeds. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * History, "that liver and white spaniels pre-date the breeding of the Black and Tan Terrier with an ordinary spaniel conducted by the Duke of Norfolk." But I thought we'd already decided that the Duke of Norfolk had nothing to do with it?
 * That's what I get for writing the first paragraph after the third! I've corrected this. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is in British spelling (recognising, etc), should "color/colors" be "colour/colours" in the History section?
 * Corrected, I'll put a British English template on the talk page shortly. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Found and corrected one more instance, but I think we've got them all now.
 * History, "with the term Norfolk Spaniel considered but ultimately rejected" Considered for what?
 * Expanded slightly to explain.
 * In the History section you say that the breed was rolled into the English Springer in the "early 20th century", but then say that Watson wrote about the Norfolk in 1905. This is the early 20th century, so isn't it possible that the breeds were combined after he wrote the book? Or do you have an exact date for the combining (should probably give that, if so)?
 * Had thought I didn't have any reliable sources for 1902, the date of the creation of the English Springer breed - however on some further searching I found that it was mentioned in the American Kennel Club standard. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Temperament, "much more bitter" Bitter? Is that a common dog term? I don't think I've ever heard it applied to any companion animal before.
 * I haven't either - I've added it as a quote and added a direct citation for that. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now the problem is that I can't find this quote in the reference. Did something get referenced where it wasn't supposed to?
 * Had to go back into the history to find out where it had come from. Turns out that the line pre-dated my work on the article and was linked to an article by Ria Horter which is now dead. I'd tracked a copy of the article to here, but the "bitter" description isn't there, so I've removed the line from the article. As this would have left a rather short paragraph, I've merged the two paragraphs in that section together. Miyagawa   (talk)  23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Temperament, "Described as "babblers", "Babblers"? What does this mean?
 * Managed to insert a link to the Wiktionary entry. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But this link still doesn't tell me what babbling is in a dog. In a human it is speaking constantly/quickly, almost train-of-thought. In a dog is it constant barking, whining, etc?
 * Can't find something to explain what it means, I imagine it simply means that they're noisy, but as I can't find something to explain that I've removed the line. Miyagawa   (talk)  23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Temperament section you mention that they were popular in America, but there is nothing about this in the History section. Do we know when they were first brought there? Were they rolled into the English Springer Spaniel at the same time in the US as in Britain? Did the AKC recognize them at any point? Were they commonly exported anywhere else?
 * Can't find evidence of them being exported anywhere else. In the states the ESS wasn't recognised until 1924 by which time any Norfolks would have been known as Springer Spaniels for some years. The only other mention of Norfolks in the US I can find is the image in the Infobox itself as the Westminster Show is held in New York. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, more would be nice, but if there's nothing out there then there's nothing to add, I guess.
 * In the History section you say "only standard point is that they averaged 16 inches (41 cm) in height", but then describe them as 17-18 inches in the Appearance section.
 * Hadn't included that the 17-18 was the size according to the standard in the 1840s - have now corrected. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Appearance, first paragraph says "liver and white or liver and black,", second paragraph says "black and white or liver and white". Which?
 * Hadn't included that this was because the standard had changed over the course of the years (now corrected). Miyagawa   (talk)  17:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So did the colors in the breed change? They went from being always liver with some other color to always white with some other color?
 * Although it's not written anywhere, I believe it's due to rather loose classification of dogs in the 19th century. For instance springers/cockers were purely on size rather than ancestry. The author of the earlier standard was a dog author who took it upon himself to write a standard for dog breeds of that period, some 20 years before most dog shows began (and with it conformation breeding). The later standard was actually written by a spaniel club once conformation showing had begun, and I presume had to adapt it to fit the dogs of the time, and since the terms for Springer and Norfolk Spaniels were being competitive it was probably written to try to absorb the general mid-size spaniel into the Norfolk breed when in fact the opposite happened. Miyagawa   (talk)  23:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick note, I have found several places in the article where public domain material is copied almost verbatim into the article. However, proper attribution is given, and so there are no violations of policy. There are no instances of copyrighted information being copied. This technically meets GA criteria, and so I will pass the article with the wording remaining as is, although it skirts the edges of plagiarism a bit to close for my comfort level.
 * If you can let me know of which parts you're referring to, I'm happy to redraft as it wasn't deliberate. Miyagawa   (talk)  23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * General references should be in alphabetical order.
 * Fixed. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of your refs are to books that are over 100 years old. Has there been nothing more recent published on the breed? Scholarship can often change immensely within a decade, much less a century.
 * Added a slight expansion from The Kennel Club, who list the Norfolk Spaniel on the English Springer Spaniel as being the previous name for the breed. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a bit reliant on old refs for my comfort, but if there's nothing else out there than I guess there's not much you can do.
 * The link to the Mercer book in the general references is deadlinked. It's just a convenience link, so not a big deal, but thought I'd let you know.
 * That's odd, it loads here. Miyagawa   (talk)  21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

A couple of questions on references and a few issues with prose and coverage. Placing the article on hold for these to be addressed. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A few more comments/questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes you've made to the article look good. However, when going back through the sources to find the instances of close paraphrasing that I mentioned above, I found a few more issues. Below:


 * Close copying + some other issues I found while searching sources (latter are bolded)


 * Temperament, "The breed often formed a strong individual attachment to their owner and was unhappy when separated from its master. It was more ill-tempered than the common springer spaniels, and if not well broken, could be obstinate." Identical sentence structure and very close wording.
 * Fixed. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Appearance, "It had long legs, feathered ears, a white area on forehead, which was said to "[add] a great deal to his beauty"," I can find neither the quote nor the rest of the statement on page 26 of Mercer (nor pages 24-29).
 * Managed to track it back to the Ria Horter reference, and from there traced the citation to a book I hadn't previously added (and have now added). Miyagawa   (talk)  11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Appearance, "it was not kept very pure, being crossed with Sussex and Clumber Spaniels." Identical wording.
 * Fixed. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * General, General references still need to be put in alphabetical order
 * Done. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Temperament - Watson discussing some of the dogs being quite noisy on p. 268. Perhaps this could be combined with the babbling quote to give a better description of the trait? However, Watson also says that this is only some members of the breed, while other hunt with relative muteness, so I think if you include one part you need to include the other.
 * The reference was from Lee, which I've added and incorporated babbling. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * References - My apologies, it wasn't Mercer that was deadlinked, it was Lee. I have now fixed the link, I believe.
 * Thanks. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * History - On page 304 of Lee, he gives an alternate possibility of this breed's origin (the crossing of a water spaniel and a Sussex). What would your thoughts be on adding this information to the article? It seems that currently you say the Duke of Norfolk didn't create them, but don't then give any idea of how they were created. Lee also expands more on some members of the breeds being quite noisy while hunting.
 * Added that information, and added the noisy/mute information to temperament. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Appearance, "a fairly heavy body with legs that are longer than other field spaniel breed but not as long as the Irish Water Spaniel," Quite similar wording to the source. I know from personal experience with my horse breed articles that physical descriptions are the hardest thing to reword - how many different ways can you reword "sloping shoulder, short back, short loins and strong legs" before it just starts sounding silly!! :)
 * Reworded. Miyagawa   (talk)  14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Appearance, "a deep chest with long sloping shoulders and strength in the back and loins," should be sourced to Lee p. 306, not p. 305, but this is a very nitpicky detail!
 * Fixed. Miyagawa   (talk)  14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Less close wording than I really thought - the first one listed here was the first one I saw, and the fact that it was two full sentences really made me sit up and take notice. However, there were a few other things I found while going through the sources, so I guess they should probably be taken care of before I pass it for GA. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten everything - let me know if you see anything else. Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa   (talk)  14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Allright, looks good. Thanks for all of the work; I'm now passing the article to GA status. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)