Talk:Poodle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for comment on how to describe the dispute over the origin of the poodle

There is a clear consensus for version 1.

Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the dispute over the origin of the poodle be framed in line with the wording at this version which I'll call version 1 for the sake of discussion or this which I'll call version 2? Doug Weller talk 08:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Version 1 Details in threaded discussion below but in short I feel version 2 has WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV problems. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Version 1 "95 countries" wording is awkward and is arguably WP:OR. Further, It is within WP:NPOV to plainly state first the FCI's stance and then the stance of the anglophone organizations. I think it would also be acceptable to add a comment about the German association's stance after listing the anglophone claims. Rosguill (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Version 1 My issue with version 2 is the tone; it also appeals to the number of member countries which has nothing to do with history accuracy (more like an opinion poll assessed by the editor (WP:SYNTH)). Version 1 also sensibly mentions France without sensational language. I have other concerns about the sources but they'll be addressed in another section (out of the scope of this RFC). —PaleoNeonate – 01:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Version 1 seems to be better written and avoids puffery. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Version 1, version two is horribly worded and appears to POV pushing. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC).
• Version 1. per above. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 23:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Version 1 reads better and seems to cover the issue in more detail. I didn't take a really long look though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Version 1 is neutral and informative, and clearly better. The sentence On the other hand the origin of the poodle is disputed amongst only 3 countries out of 95 worldwide in Version 2 smacks of WP:Editorializing. Appealing to a strange sort of 'headcount of countries' to justify the obvious POV is just, well, odd.GirthSummit _(blether) 15:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• version 1; this is not ambiguous per high quality sources, NPOV, and OR. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I think there are two issues, both of which involved our WP:NPOV policy. One is how we word the view of the FCI. I think User:Gabriel HM's wording is inappropriate in the way it suggests that the numbers show that the 3 kennel clubs who don't follow the FCI should be dismissed (that's the way I read it).

Also, this is to some extent a political issue of national pride, especially noting that the German kennel club was evidently more interested in avoiding disputes than anything else, and frankly I suspect that almost all of the members (the numbers vary according to whether you count only full members or all categories) other than France and Germany aren't very interested in the dispute so using them as an argument is meaningless. "On the other hand the origin of the poodle is disputed amongst only 3 countries out of 95 worldwide" makes little sense as there are more than 95 countries and the "3" are not members of the FCI.

2nd issue: why rely solely on these organisations? Should organisations such as these be presented in the article as the arbiters of what is really an issue for history, biology, etc? Doug Weller talk 08:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Your argumentation could be right if and if I was trying to erase your small three references. On the contrary I never touched them. The one that keeps erasing the fact that the vast majority of the countries worldwide are stating the poddle as being as a French breed, it is you with your constant deletions assorted with threats of POV that do not follow the rules of wiki. I am very sorry if I rely on the “mere” 95 kennel clubs members worldwide compared to the 3 kennel clubs that you are stating. What is the most sad it that even Germany declare the poodle as being French. And as I quote you “Why such an obessession against a dog breed origin?” You own a poodle and you are afraid of French bashing?? Just kidding :) And the fact that the only 3 countries out of 100 see the poodle as a French breed should be more than enough to stop this ludicrous war edit. But if you are able to bring better insight info about the deep origin of the poodle, better than the experts that states that this dog come the Barbet, an old French breed descending from the barbarian steppes of North Africa, please, bring some real documented reliable and pertinent sources, but good luck, because up to now, the poodle is a Mediterranean breed such as the bichon, the Portuguese Water Dog, the Spanish water dog, the coton de tulear and so on. The was breed brought to Europe and standardised by France, after the arab conquest of the Iberian peninsula according to the best historians. I have solid ref, but If you want to argue on an arbitration level, I am well prepared.--Gabriel HM (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Version 2 seems a little bit less neutral. We have a situation where there's an outlier view from some significant organizations (notably the English speaking ones) and a majority view. And it's fine to frame it that way, but to exclude it altogether while simultaneously talking up the significance of the majority group feels like a weaker approach from a strictly WP:NPOV perspective. And for the sake of disclosing CoI - my dog is half-poodle and half-Shih Tzu and 100% Quebecois so I don't have a horse in this race. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Simonm223This issue is just to assert that the overwhelming majority of the countries states the poodle as a French breed. And don’t know why the 3 English speaking kennel clubs would have a better insight than the rest of the world. Furthermore may I remind you that these speaking English countries are just 3, and for the rest of then such Ireland, New Zealand Australia and so on, they all side for the French breed origin. Mais peut être qu’en tant que francophones, nous nous sommes mal compris sur cet échange cousin d’outre altlantique...--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL - I can get by in french but neither I nor my dog are francophones (we adopted him in Ontario but he was sourced to a Quebecois breeder originally, it was a bit of a joke was all) - that said, the issue at play here is that the three kennel clubs in question may be a minority, but they still represent a pretty substandial bloc within dog breeding and I think it'd be inappropriate to leave out their opinion as undue. Nor do we need to call the majority that opposes them overwhelming when we can simply provide the necessary context by wikilinking to the appropriate supporting material. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok you're now at 4 reverts. We've tried to explain to you the problem hear and your response is WP:IDHT - and now in response to me reporting you for clear brightline edit warring you're suggesting you'll take the matter to arbitration on my talk page? Good luck with that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Emphasizing the 95 vs 3 distinction without a reliable source saying that this is significant is original research. The best solution, in my opinion, is to present the two opinions independently, as in Version 1. If editors are concerned that this gives undue weight to the anglophone organizations, this could be further supplemented by a line about the German kennel club's position clarifying that German kennel clubs do not identify the poodle as a German breed. Rosguill (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, @Simonm223:, @Doug Weller:. Gabriel HM (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked and I vote that we disregard his comments and conrtibutions and move forward with version 1 (Doug Weller's version) as there is a unanimous consensus for it (WP:SNOWBALL.) Edit: for transparancies sake, I've removed this content: Due to the breed's popularity in France, it was claimed to be a national breed.<ref name="KC">{{cite web|title=Breed Information Centre Poodle (Standard)|url=http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/display.aspx?id=4097|website=KC.org.uk|publisher=[[The Kennel Club]]|accessdate=15 January 2018|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170910185940/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/display.aspx?id=4097|archivedate=10 September 2017|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The source included literally doesn't mention France at all. It appears as if someone faked the sourcing in order to include that sentence. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 23:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. What an incredibly strange hill to die on Rosguill (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Canis aquaticus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Canis aquaticus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Canis aquaticus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally a good article but lots of unnecessary repeats - eg on the breeds intelligence.

Secondly, the article needs to be much, much more formal. Nothing says ‘amateur’ more than cliches like ‘blows them away’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2682:3C00:DCA6:BE38:9A29:89E0 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Merle is not a naturally occuring color in the breed and is a sign that the dog has been mixed with another breed at some point in the past. Merle is considered a fault. 35.2.70.124 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Merle is sometimes introduced to other purebred dog breeds through crossbreeding, but these dogs are not purebred and cannot be registered with any reputable kennel club. [10] Just recently the UK Kennel Club (the oldest in the World) has banned the registration of merle Poodles as they are not and never have been a colour recognised in pure Poodles. https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media-centre/2020/january/registration-of-dogs-of-merle-colouring/

Mardyscot (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

German Kennel Club

The German Kennel Club breed standard states: "The origin of the poodle comes from France, where they are called caniche and were formerly bred for duck hunting", just to add to the debate. William Harris (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The addition in the infobox is one I was doubtful about. I have read somewhere that the FCI declared the breed French to appease the French Kennel Club and the German Kennel Club acquiesced, but until I can relocate the source I think I will remove it. Cavalryman (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC).

I believe we have a debate based on the AKC, that because the English ruling class preferred the use of the German word "poodle" rather than the French "caniche", then it must be of German origin. A similar debate could be made over the English-preferred "Great Dane", known on the continent as the German mastiff; nothing to do with Denmark. It all depended on who the British Empire was against at the time of introduction and naming. William Harris (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this is one where the AKC are in the majority (who knows what is right), I can find one secondary source that states France is the most likely country of origin. It appears consensus view among independent writers (not FCI) is the Standard Poodle developed in Germany and the smaller sizes were all subsequently developed in France. Cavalryman (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC).

As we know, dog clubs are only reliable sources for their breed standards and not the histories of dogs. I am happy with the independent writers' consensus. A 75kb article of unreliable or no sourcing has been neatly trimmed down to 24kb of reliable sourcing; well done. William Harris (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

194.78.40.90 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add info please

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

Second sentence, it reads "dived". Should be "divided". Under HISTORY, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, "... frequently employed employed in circuses...." I think one "employed" is sufficient. 2601:600:A080:89A0:6C52:957A:60C6:5B73 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Vahurzpu (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic tone

The article, especially the breed description, reads as positively biased. Vocabulary and phraseology could be adjusted and abbreviated to make for a more neutral tone. Iisakki (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please fix

I needed to add a couple of wikilinks to this article, but it seems to be protected from editing. Please fix this situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Please tell us what needs to be fixed, or create an account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

IP, the page has been protected to prevent vandalism which was frequently occurring. If you wish to edit the page, feel free to register an account. Otherwise please outline here what you would like to add to the article and, if it is of benefit to the article, a registered editor will do so. Cavalryman (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC).

Redirects

Redirects were a bit of a mess; half of them went to sections that don't exist, Standard Poodle goes to a different part of the page than Standard poodle, etc. I've cleaned up a little, but I'm not sure if the history subsection about the variants or the top of the page is the best link for Standard poodle, Toy poodle, etc, so I've held off on changing those for now. The section has the most in-depth treatment of them but it's also weirdly focused and doesn't mention the standard variant at all, except as the implicit default. Rusalkii (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii, sorry for the wait. I'll try to get through this review asap. Some initial comments below:

GA Criteria:

1. Well written

• Lead - should probably be a bit longer to summarize the major aspects of the article. Currently you only summarize some material from History and Size Variants.

Tried to address this, not entirely happy with the lead as it stands but it hits at least briefly on each of the sections.

• Lead - "..although it is also claimed to be from France." - claimed by whom?
• History - "... and the dog they refer to..." - this sentence reads oddly. Does "they" refer to "A majority of cynologists"? If so, maybe you could just say "Most cynologists believe the modern Standard Poodle originated in Germany."
• History - "It is claimed..." - typically a phrase to avoid since it's unclear (by whom? Someone knowledgeable on the topic? See WP:Weasel words). Also, maybe instead you could add the bit about the Middle Ages to the previous sentence ("...originated in Germany, where it has been bred since the Middle Ages.")
• History - "indisputably Germanic" (suggest removing "indisputably", as it's unneeded)
• History - "Additionally, there exists..." Avoid "there exists" when possible, it's typically a meaningless phrase. Consider instead "Numerous works by German artists as early as the 17th century..."
• Size variants - "obedient natures"
• Size variants - "It was in French circuses that the breed..."
• Size variants - "One of the reasons for creating this fourth size variety is believed to be a desire to reduce the number of entries of Poodles by variety at conformation shows." I'm not sure I understand. Why would a fourth variety reduce the number of entries? Also "is believed to be" could you clarify by whom?

I assume this means that some of the poodles that were competing in the grade one above or below (Standard and Miniature) would now be in Medium, so there are fewer dogs in each category. Unfortunately I don't have access to the source and can't find anything about the origins of Medium poodles online, so I can't confirm it or clarify who it's believed by. I've rephrased lightly and I'm inclined to take the source on faith about the content but if you think I should remove it I can do that.

• Recent history - Wikilink UK and US Kennel Clubs?
• Recent history - "poodles were quite unpopular until..."
• Recent history - "most popular breed from 1960 to 1982" - any idea what "most popular" means? Most owned in the US? Most entered into AKC shows? Most awarded at AKC shows?
• Appearance - "with the different breed varieties..."
• Appearance - "Some kennel clubs do not recognize the Medium Poodle variety." - you just told us this two paragraphs above ("Not universally recognized by the world's kennel clubs as a variety..."). No need to tell us twice. I think it fits better above and you can remove it here.

I think this is needed here, because it explains why different breed standards have different size for the Standard and Miniature. I've rephrased a bit.

• Coat - "... that is longer than many other breeds of dogs" (obvious from context).
• Clips and grooming - Over 50 different styles of coat clips are recognised..." - is there an official body that recognizes coat clips?

No, edited, no idea where that figure came from.

• Clips and grooming - "A similar clip was historically used... vital organs covered." You already told us this in the History section. Perhaps you can remove one of the mentions?
• Clips and grooming - "Poodle hair can also be 'corded'... human dreadlocks" seems redundant to "Any Poodle with a normal coat can be corded when its adult coat is in." Perhaps you can merge those two sentences?
• Temperament - "Poodles are known as a highly..."
• Health - "The Poodle Health Registry lists..." and "there are no Poodle-specific health problems" read as if they contradict each other (though I suspect they do not). Could you clarify? Maybe you could move the Poodle Health Registry sentence down to lead the next paragraph ("Some of the worst...").
• Health - At first I misread "sebaceous adeneitis, a skin disease and Addison's disease" as being a list of three problems. Perhaps you could rewrite as "...are the skin disease sebaceous adenitis (estimated prevalence 2.7%) and the endocrine disorder Addison's disease."?
• Work and sport - "it is currently..." reads a bit odd since "it" seems to be referring to "Poodles". Maybe "they are currently classified"?
• Work and sport - "...trainable nature and background as a gundog making them suitable to battlefields, as evidenced by their ability to be trained to ignore gunfire." It feels like this sentence is informing me twice that they can be trained to work near guns. Maybe you can shorten it?

Replaced "gundog" with "hunting dog" - does that address the concern about repetition?

• Work and sport - It feels like the last paragraph should go higher, before the fun trivia bits about Prince Rupert and Napoleon.
• Work and sport - "famous hunting Poodle he brought over with him from what is today Germany who would"

2. Verifiable with no original research

• Any reason the {{More citations needed}} tag is still at the top of this page? It seems it can be removed.

None, I forgot to remove it when I finished fixing the sourcing. Removed.

• Is there a reason the second sentence ends with five references? What do they each support?

Most of the book references weren't added by me, and I'm not sure which part of the previous claim are supported by which book. I can try to get access to them to confirm if necessary.

• I don't have access to the books cited in the article, but I've checked the online references up to the beginning of "Clips and grooming" and they all support the referenced material. Will check a few more (hopefully tomorrow).
• Clips and grooming - The paragraph "In most cases... all major kennel club shows." - I'm having trouble finding support for most of the facts in that paragraph in any of three references. Could you breakdown what each of the three sources references, or replace them if needed? I may have just missed parts when skimming the sources.

The UKC source gives "The Standard Poodle's ... is presented in various traditional trims or, less frequently, corded.", for some support for the rarity of the corded clip. The FCI source supports that it's allowed to be presented in shows that use that standard, likewise the UKC, and both have a brief description of the corded coat; the comparison to dreadlocks and the Komondor isn't in there but I think that's within our discretion to allow the reader to picture the effect. The third source I think left behind in a reorganization, replaced with a new one about caring for the corded coat to support that sentence. It isn't the best-looking source but I think this is a reasonably non-controversial statement I feel okay sourcing here.

• Colours - "The Poodle has a wide variety of colouring, including..." I don't see where the reference [1] supports the list of colors.
  • Ah, looking for something else, I saw this ref could support your color list. Perhaps you could add it up there?

Page 6 of the original reference supports the recognized FCI colorings. The citation for the full coloring list was further down in the section, since it supported large parts of it. I've added it there.

• Colours - "Recognized FCI colourations... (apricot and red before 2015)" I read this to mean apricot and red were acceptable colourations to FCI before 2015, but now they are not. But if I understood the cited source (and I very well may not have) apricot and red poodles could be allowed under the color fawn? If that's what you meant, could you clarify the text perhaps?

I meant the latter, but on reflection I've removed that entire parenthetical, it seems like an unnecessary amount of detail.

• Colours - "and are excluded from many registries", the cited ref [2] seems to suggest they were excluded from many shows during the 20th century but are now welcome at many events (it calls out only the "AKC breed ring" as not allowing the dogs). I'm ignorant of dog-showing so I don't know if "registries" refers to something different?

The AKC standard (and some others) specifies "solid colour" (see pg 6). "Conformation" shows are where this standard is applied - those are essentially "does this dog look like what we expect from this breed", often to a very specific standard. Other events, like obedience, are decided on the basis of what the dog can do, and appearance doesn't matter as much. I've changed that second cite to point more directly at the breed standard, and an addition citation to clarify.

• Colours - "however, only solid-colored poodles may compete in conformation" I don't see where the cited ref [3] supports that. Just that it checks only those colors as "standard colors". Also I assume "conformation" is a style of competition, is there a decent wikilink you could add to that? I found Conformation (dog) but it's not really about a competition style.

Added link

• Colours - "The coat will usually be white and coloured in equal amounts," I don't see where the cited ref [4] supports that.

It doesn't and is in fact incorrect, removed, thank you for the catch.

• Colours - "Like Dobermans... secondary color." I don't see where the cited ref [5] supports these two sentences.

I added a cite for the last sentence. I can't find a reliable-looking source for the middle sentence, I've cut it.

• Temperament - "A 1994 study by... 110 breeds in intelligence." - I think this should be tweaked a bit. Coren's book is long, and mostly about the history and different kinds of dog intelligence. He ranks just one aspect of intelligence "working and obedience intelligence", but he also has entire chapters discussing "instinctive intelligence" and "adaptive intelligence". If you'd like to include the ranking, I'd suggest noting that this is "working and obedience intelligence" (or that it's meant to rank their ability to learn from humans, as our article puts it). Also our article on the book claims its a ranking of 130 breeds, not 110 as this article notes. I've got the 2005 edition in front of me and I see it has been expanded to 140 breeds, with the Poodle still #2 (there's a PDF available online if you Google the title; I won't link it as it's probably illegally posted).

Our article says 130 breeds for the 1995 edition, and I don't know recall where I got the number but I mention the 1994 study. The cite goes to the book, though, so I've corrected it to 130 and changed the text to match the citation. I've also rephrased it to match the kind of intelligence, thank you for that catch.

• Made it to the bottom of Description. The last two sections are shorties, so hopefully it won't take long.
• Health - "led to rapid careless breeding aimed..." I'm not sure "careless" is really supported by the source here. The source describes extremely careful breeding, selecting from a small pool of show winners to try to replicate desired characteristics. Maybe you could rephrase?
• Health - "Poodles have a life expectancy of 10-18 years, with the Standard Poodle, like most large dogs, tending to be more short-lived." I don't see anything in the first reference [6] that supports anything in this sentence, so that ref can probably be removed. The second ref [7] says "Standards live 10 to 14 years on average, and Miniatures or Toys average 12 years to late teens." which basically supports the sentence in our article, except "18" is a bit more precise than "late teens"... any chance you can find a source that specifically supports the "10-18" range (perhaps I missed it in one of the sources)?

The first reference is the one with the 10-18 range; it's under "Average sizes and life expectancy of the breed". Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Done! Will try to get to the images asap. Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

• ✓ Pass I checked a few other dogbreed GAs and the major topics they cover are all covered here. Nice work.

4. Neutral

• ✓ Pass

5. Stable

• ✓ Pass

6. Illustrated

• c:File:The Poodle, 1600s painting of the traditional poodle.png - Something's not right with the licensing on this image. If it's truly from the 1600s as claimed, it's in the US public domain, not CC BY-SA. I tried to figure out the provenance of the image so we could sort out its licensing status, but I'm hitting a dead end. The Commons page sources it to this blog post which says only "George Stubbs Paintings, The Poodle". George Stubbs did do lots of dog paintings, including a famous poodle painting, but (A) I can't find any record on the web that he painted this painting, and (B) he was born in 1724, so he couldn't paint a 1600s painting. Any chance you know or can find out more? Otherwise, I'll start a conversation on Commons to see if anyone else can figure something out. In the meantime I'd suggest you remove the image; it's not really critical to the section it's in.

I've removed it for now, I'll try to look into the provenance of the image later.

• All other photos are properly licensed as best I can tell! Ajpolino (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats all for tonight! Will hopefully get through the rest tomorrow. Ajpolino (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the review! I will try to respond to your comments over the weekend. Rusalkii (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, all done. It's a nice article, thanks for the interesting read. It does need a bit of cleanup to the text and references before I think it's ready for the green plus. Let me know if you have questions or need help with anything. Otherwise take your time responding. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii:, just checking in as its been two weeks since you edited the article. I hope all is well. If you'd prefer to improve the article without the open GAN hanging over your head, just let me know. I can close the nomination as "failed", and you could renominate it whenever you're ready. If we go that route, you're welcome to ping me if you'd like me to do the second review, or leave it in the normal queue for a new reviewer to pick up. If instead you just need a bit more time, let me know and I can check in on you in a week or two. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ajpolino Hey, sorry about that, work got a bit much and a medical issue started acting up again. I will try to wrap this up within a week, but if I don't feel free to close it and I'll resubmit whenever I've addressed all your comments. Rusalkii (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all. I hope real life things are improving for you. No rush here. If I don't hear from you in another week I'll "fail" this. But as I said above, when you resubmit just ping me if you'd like me to re-review, and I'll pick it back up asap. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii, per the above I'm going to go ahead and close this review. Like I said above, feel free to renominate any time. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, doing well, just chipping at it slowly. I'll ping you once I'm done. Rusalkii (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ajpolino I think I've (finally) covered everything. Thank you for the thorough comments, I think the prose reads better and you caught some citation issues I missed in my own clean up passes before the nomination. Let me know if there's anything else! Rusalkii (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Super! You've caught me at a busy moment, so if I don't get to this by the end of the weekend, please ping me to remind me. Thanks and I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino ping Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the ping, I'm back at last. Notes: 1. Well written - I've made some minor suggested copyedits, including to the lead. Feel free to revert any you have issues with, or we can discuss here. I'm happy that this is now a pass ✓ Pass

2. Verifiable -

• There's a message on the talk page casting doubt on the weight ranges in the infobox. Could you look into it?
• Just noting for posterity that we don't have the book sources used in the History and Appearances sections, and can't verify several things therein. We can assume in good faith that the material is correct. If you find accessible sources that verify that info, it might be worth replacing some of the less accessible books (nothing against books, but some of the sources are fairly old, and some short sentences inexplicably have 3–5 references).
• Where does Their individual hair follicles have an active growth period that is longer than that of many other breeds; combined with the tightly curled coat, which slows the loss of dander and dead hair by trapping it in the curls, an individual Poodle may release less dander and hair into the environment. come from? I don't see it supported by any of the three cited sources. Instead they all seem to suggest no difference in released dander (though one imagines they release less hair). Also you can probably replace these sources with something newer. A quick Google brings up a few options. It's nice to have relatively recent sources for scientific/medicine-related material so the reader knows the material is still reliable.
• Though not suitable as a guard dog because it is neither a territorial breed nor particularly aggressive, is cited to the AKC site but it looks like that site rates them 5 out of 5 in "Watchdog/Protective Nature". Am I missing something?
• Both diseases became more prevalent in poodles after the 1960s burst which source does this come from? The Pederson paper says "The breed has suffered a major artificial genetic bottleneck associated with show-winning bloodlines that rose to dominance in the 1950s" -- wondering if 1950s was meant here, or if this sentence in the article was based on something else.

Bed time here, will wrap this up tomorrow. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok Rusalkii all set. Criteria 3-6 are met. Could you just straighten out the issues above? Thanks again for the read. Ajpolino (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii:, just a gentle reminder of the above. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii: just another reminder. If there's a problem and you'd like another reviewer, you're welcome to start a new good article nomination, and I'll leave it in the queue for someone else to look over. Otherwise, ping me when you get around to this. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Poodle, 1600s painting of the traditional poodle.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)