Talk:English Cocker Spaniel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
[edit] Cross Breeding
I removed a statement that stated that the difference in appearance between show and field lines was "likely" the result of cross breeding with other dog breeds among hunting lines. No source was offered and in researching this issue, I have found nothing to support it. As these two types of dog have always been registered with the same body, it is not any more likely that field-dog breeders would cross breed dogs than show breeders would. Moreover, the differences are entirely explainable through selective breeding. In fact, a good case can be made that the field-bred dog is more similar to the classical spaniel than is the show bred dog. Afterall, field dogs have not been selectively bred to alter their appearance. They have been selected for hunting ability, while show dogs have been selected for physical traits that breeders believe will attract the attention of show judges. This has led to longer ears, silkier coats, and larger body size.--Counsel 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me. I suspect it'll be tough to find reliable sources that explain this one way or the other. If you find any web sites to support these thoughts, would be nice to add them as references. Elf | Talk 17:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- This difference in appearance between show and field lines is not uncommen, even in other breeds, and is more likely the result of a different focus in breeders breeding program. In field lines the focus is usually on the dogs performence as a working dog, and less on it's appearance. Jerazol 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources Added
I have added a number of sources to the page. Question: when is this section titled "Sources" and when is it titled "References"? Additionally, I posted links to a very lengthy history of the breed. There is good information there, some of which we should include in our history section. I will give it a go later, but do not have time right now. That is why I posted it in External Links rather that sources. If some of the information is incorporated into our history section, should these links go into the Sources section?--Counsel 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- It shd always be "References" for items used to add or verify info in the article. Sometimes there's a "Further readign" section for books that people might find interesting that don't necessarily relate to anything in the article. Yes, web refs just like books go into the Refs section when used to add info. Even better would be a few footnotes that indicate what key info came from where; I've been slowly figuring out how to do this. Elf | Talk 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added a bit to the History section and will add a bit more soon. I am using the Harvard footnote style that Wiki says is one of the prefered styles. If someone more skilled that I can put in the Whiz-Bang numbered footnote system, that would be neat. As the Spaniel Journal articles are now properly cited in the history section, I moved them to references.--Counsel 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rating
I have placed a B rating on this article. This is the first article that I have rated and am hesitant to jump in with a higher rating. That said, I believe that this article meets the qualifications of even higher ratings and compares favorably with those rated similarly.--Counsel 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
