Talk:Russian Spaniel

Recognition

This page throws up many interesting questions - what I as a non-dog expert am curious about is its non-recognition. Is it common for official US and UK kennel clubs not to recgonise breeds with little penetration into Anglophone countries? Has there been discussion? What would official clubs call these dogs anyway in the meantime? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading something about it when I was doing a couple of extra bits for the Alsatian Shepalute article, and I just managed to find it here [1]. Apparently the American Kennel Club requires 3 generations of breeding in the United States and 500 dogs before they recognise the dog as a new breed. I imagine that the US Russian Spaniel Club is working towards this, which is why they are pushing for people to register their dogs - to reach the 500 mark. Not sure about the UK Kennel Club, but I expect it's a very similar scenario. Going to go and add that to the article now :). Miyagawa (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Managed to track down the UK Kennel Club requirements which are here: [[2]]. Very similar, but does not require the 500 numbers. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The requirements for registration stated in the article are not an accurate reflection of the requirements stated by either The Kennel Club or the AKC. The AKC can add a breed if they consider such an action justified based on a number of factors,[3] and The Kennel Club wants to see similar evidence, but both require more qualifications than reported and neither state the absolutes featured in the article. Attackofthemoans (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, controversy with dog breeds :) All this is fascinating stuff and is really good to add to the article. definitions etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I broke the final paragraph off from the history section and created a new recognition section. In which I've now listed the specific requirements to be recognised by the Kennel Club and the AKC. I had previously not meant to list these as I simply wanted to highlight the factors that the Russian Spaniel will find most difficult to complete prior to being recognised, however it does now show the complete picture. Miyagawa (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian Spaniel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not many problems here, but some nitpicks

• Please check consistency of style, Description and Temperament both switch from singular The in the first paragraph to plural they in the second, and temperament also changes in the course of the first para. There are others eslewhere, please check
• As a non specialist, I felt that there were terms used that needed a link or gloss, field lines, show line.
• Their goal is to find the bird, send it into the air and then to retrieve it on command. I assume that the bird is shot at some stage in this sequence?
• Can you assure me that Dogster.com is a reliable source? On the temperament in particular it is rather gushing and uncritical

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed everything apart from the Dogster issue - currently digging around for better sources although they might end up being in Russian - whilst there are a fair volume of English language pages linked from Google, most of them have the exact same text used over and over. Regarding the show/field links, I linked to the same pages as the English Cocker Spaniel article did. Miyagawa (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, removed the Dogster.com reference and re-referenced as necessary. After reviewing it I wasn't confident that it was an adequate source. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: