Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Best in Show winners of Crufts/archive1

List of Best in Show winners of Crufts
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've previously worked on the Featured List List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and I'd like to get this one up to the same standard. However this one has proved to be a little different following further research I conducted at the British Library earlier in the month and the discovered of a title that pre-existed Best in Show.

The main issues I can foresee, will the incompleteness of Best Champion cause it to fail the FL criteria? Should I add an image column to Best in Show although currently there don't seem to be a single free use image for any of the dogs listed there.

Issue I'm aware of - there's no groups column for best champion - as far as I can tell there were no set groups prior to 1928, and they only came in at the same time as Best in Show, but I'm trying to find a citation for this. (Edit: Now found that they did predate Best in Show prior to 1928, however since Best Champion was not automatically the group winner, its probably best to leave the column out anyway. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! Miyagawa  (talk)  12:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I love dogs, so I was glad to see this article coming up. There are a few issues for attention:-
 * Prose
 * General standard a bit iffy. I have done some copyediting in the first paragraph, but the rest could do with attention, preferably from a new pair of eyes.
 * I am puzzled by the expression "although the records of the winners is incomplete." Does this mean that the records have been permanently lost, and that it is impossible to reconstruct the missing parts? If this is so, you need to be a bit more definite and say why the records are incomplete.
 * I don't think you need two separate citations to two consecutive pages of the same work. It would be better to cite "Jackson (1990): pp. 194–95"
 * "The current holder of the title..." This sentence will be out of date by the next Crufts. Is it necessary to say this in the text, since the information is included in the table?
 * Most of the information in the second paragraph, and certainly the level of detail given, is not relevant to this article. It should be severely curtailed.
 * There are numerous prose glitches in the remainder of the lead, which I trust will be picked up in the copyediting. A few examples: two "ands" in a sentence, "mid-1960s" lacking hyphen, use of "Mr" etc.


 * Tables
 * Best Champion table. This looks a bit scrappy at present, the chief issues being:-
 * The broken columns, arising from the large number of "unknown" years, give the table an unfinished look
 * The small number of photographs draws attention to the general lack of images, in this and the subsequent tables. Why not remove the iages from the table and place them in an independent gallery? This would enable more photographs to be added if they became available, without having to disturb the tables.
 * Inconsistencies in the "Owner" column: "Mr" and "Mrs" entries followed by unadorned surnames, use of an ampersand to separate two names, the Duchess given in full glory.
 * Overall, the table looks a bit cramped. You could make columns wider, particularly the "Year" column; numerals always look better with some space around them. Likewise, the refs column looks squeezed.
 * 1928 to present table
 * The last point, above, applies to this table as far as the "Year" and "Refs" columns are concerned, and also the "Group" column.
 * More inconsistencies in owners' titles.
 * Most successful breeds and Most successful groups tables
 * You should align the numbers to the centres of their columns - it looks much neater


 * References: I haven't carried out a sources check, but it is not necessary to give retrieval dates for books when you use the Google book link.

That's all I have. If you need to raise issues with this review, please ping my talkpage as I am not able to watch peer reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)