Wikipedia:Peer review/List of dog breeds/archive2

List of dog breeds[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had a major overhaul since the last peer review and most of the items suggested then have been incorporated into the list. Would like to know what needs to be done to make this a Featured list.

Thanks, GB fan (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A great effort getting all those breed photographs. This looks to be the basis of a very impressive list, after a bit more work

It is not appropriate to head the article with a "Further information" link to List of dog types. That is a very sketchy list, much inferior to this, and it's hard to see what "further information" could be gleaned from it. The link is already in "See also".

Removed. GB fan (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, too, that you look at the longish list of "see also" links and decide how many of these are really needed.

Pared down to three see also links. GB fan (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list needs a better introduction than the present brief lead. For example, you should not ake readers rely on links to interpret youy cryptic column headings - FCI, AKC etc. You need to provide a key which states what these bodies are.
It is quite hard to interpret some the information in the table. For example, "Group 02 Section 01 #186" - what does this mean?
The table is preceded by a note stating that it is incomplete. Is this leaving the way open to the addition of further breeds, or is it suggesting that some of the large number of empty cells will eventually be filled? In this connection, a fair number of entries have no information in any of the columns, which seems strange.
The referencing seems to be very slight? A few cells are cited to sources, but the great majority are not. What are the sources for these? (This point was raised at the last peer review).
What is the relationship to the table of the list that follows the References section, consisting of links to various kennel clubs and other bodies? Are these sources? If so, they should be cited in the normal way. If not, they should be listed under "External links".
I note from the toolbox on the upper right of this page that there are two links to disambiguation pages. These need fixing.

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I will work on these and see what I can do to fix them or answer them as I have time. I thought I was going to have more time to work on this in the near future but do to changes in RL it might be longer before I get to this project. GB fan (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]