Talk:Jack Russell Terrier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured you'd had a few dog breed articles linger for a long time so was okay to jump the queue a bt for once. Okay, let's get to it - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jack Russell Terrier is a small, principally white-bodied smooth, rough or broken–coated terrier that has its origins in fox hunting. - the sentence suffers from alot of adjectives. I think it's be better to split into:

The Jack Russell Terrier is a small (short legged?) terrier that has its origins in fox hunting. It is principally white-bodied smooth, rough or broken–coated (expand second sentence a little).

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the Chiselhurst actually Chislehurst?

Yep! I was wondering why there wasn't an article for that. :) Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Badger digging required a different type of dog to fox hunting, and it is likely that Bull Terrier blood was introduced and around this time a shorter legged variety of Jack Russell Terrier started to appear. - sentence is a little ungainly, but not familiar with it enough to make it flow better

Fiddled with the flow of it a little. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea about the issues mentioned in Post World War II section - I get no idea of how many dogs are involved here. Out of the Jack Russell, Parson and Russell terriers, which is the most common/uncommon and where? Also a succinct addition to the lead is needed. I mention this as I have never heard of the other two breeds - does this mean the term 'Jack Russell' is commonly misapplied to all three?

Added some info regarding other breeds descended from the Fox Terrier and added a line to the lead. The term Jack Russell is commonly used for a variety of small white terriers. Heck while writing this article I even found a breeder who was selling "new black Jack Russell Terriers" - which were probably a Manchester Terrier with drop ears or a cross of some type. Managed to add all I could find that I could accurately cite. Miyagawa (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I am trying to get my head around this - are the true Jack Russell Terriers limited for the most part to the US, or are they found in the UK and Australia - or are dogs in these countries for the most part Parson and Russell Terriers? From reading it, criteria for a Parson Terrier are broader (?) so theoretically a dog which is a true Jack Russell could be a Parson as well (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jack Russell Terrier is the broad type, with a size range of 10 to 15 inches, the Parson Russell is limited only to a middle range with a standard size of 12 to 14 inches, while the Russell Terrier is smaller at 8 to 12 inches. So essentially on size alone any registered Parson could also meet the size requirements for a Jack Russell, as could a Russell Terrier that is 10 inches or more. In order to fix this, the Parson is described as having different proportions - a larger head, body and chest in order to separate it from the Jack Russell Terrier. Miyagawa (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That summary you just gave is precisely what is needed in the lead, as it clarified quite a bit :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Added slightly modified version of that to the lead. :) Miyagawa (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Red foxes vary in size, but across the world they average from 13-17 pounds in weight and have an average chest size of 12-14 inches at the widest part - some metric plz :)

Added convert templates. Miyagawa (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, looking pretty good though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 April 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:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: