Talk:Russian Toy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I am reading through now and am making straightforward changes as I go. Please revert any where I inadvertently change the meaning. Queries below. Also, don't automatically do what I suggest - if you think otherwise please say so and we can discuss. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * T rying to keep singular and plural as streamlined as possible is less jarring to read. Compare change from singular to plural in first two sentences. Try rewriting the second sentence as singular or as "There are two types..." and go from there.
 * Did a copyedit on the lead. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The biggest health issue for the breed are bone fractures due to their small and sometimes delicate nature. - presumably legs?
 * I would imagine so, as they do look similar in bone to the Italian Greyhound. However I can't find a source that states that. But I did manage to find a further source for health issues, and have expanded the section with the new information and source. Miyagawa   (talk)  21:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When the Iron Curtain fell a great deal of exotic breeds were imported and this caused the population of native breeds to decline. - any idea how though? Were dogs activly killed, released to the dop pound or is it just attrition and non-breeding with them?
 * I can't find a source what specifically happened as the ones I have just say numbers fell because of foreign beeds, but I believe it was simply due to a sudden lack of popularity. I double checked the a source and have added a line to say that. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some vetinary papers would be good, but if none available then there are none to use
 * Just can't seem to find the sources unfortunately. Miyagawa   (talk)  21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to agree with the body of the text. At present, the lead implies an unspecified origin before being nearly wiped out twice, yet the body states that the breed was first recognised in 1958 (or is this long haired only???) or am I confused. I don't get a clear idea of when the breed was first recognised - were the older ones Russkiys or some English antecedent?
 * Added to the lead a line explaining about the 1958 date. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, nice article and fascinating read. Limited sourcing but I suspect not much more is available. Will run through the ticks after above queries. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 4 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:
 * Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - the alt text is pretty easy so we're there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)