wikiproject Animals/Article Structure

• Initial sentence that properly describes (and links to articles on) the fact that the breed is a breed and of what.
• Crucial facts, such as place of origin, summary physical description, any congenital health issues, and recognition by fancier/breeder organizations.
• Summary of other important facts in the article, per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section; generally the longer the article, the longer the lead.
• Infobox, if there is a breed infobox for the species (e.g. {{Infobox cat breed}}, {{Infobox cattle breed}}, {{Infobox poultry breed}}, {{Infobox dog breed}}, {{Infobox donkey}}, {{Infobox goat breed}}, {{Infobox horse breed}}, {{Infobox rabbit breed}}, {{Infobox pig breed}}, {{Infobox pigeon breed}}, {{Infobox sheep breed}}, as of March 2012^[update], and the creation of more, e.g. for guinea pigs, etc., is encouraged). Note that all information in the infobox should ultimately also be in the main article prose by the time the article is ready for Nomination as a good article (e.g. alternative names should be sourced to the registries that use them, the Description section would make use of the breed standards mentioned in the infobox as cited sources, and so on).

Red flags:

• Any behavioral fact unless very well-sourced and also a defining characteristic of the breed
• Trivia (pop-culture references, etc.)
• Foreign-language names that are not commonly encountered in English-language sources (i.e. generally anything other than the local name[s] of the breed in the place of origin)
• Alternative names or nicknames that are uncommon or unsourced
• Poorly sourced alleged controversies
• Breeding, grooming or other routine information unless peculiar to the breed or otherwise unusually noteworthy (e.g. genetic dangers or human grooming mandatory for proper health)
• Any other form of undue weight that attempts to shoehorn unimportant or uncertain information into the lead section.
• A redundant lead in a very short "stub" article; a stub does not need a verbose lead that summarizes the micro-article by repeating much of it, but simply a single sentence establishing what the subject is. A long lead in a short article usually indicates that restructuring into sections is needed.
• More than brief mention of the breed founder(s).
• Mention of foundation stock animals.

• Country/region of origin
• Folkloric origin story, if sourceable as historical and not recently made-up; they usually only exist in the case of long-attested "natural breeds" with a strong tie to a particular locale, but can include modern urban legends, such as tall tales promoted by breed founders. Note that such stories do not have to be true, just real – sourced as being actual stories while not wrongly reported by Wikipedia as proven-factual ones.
• Founder(s) of formal breed, if known, and a few pertinent details about them (place of residence, birth and death dates, occupation, and the like may be relevant).
• Foundation stock animals by name, if recorded
• Etymology of or story behind breed name
• Pre-existing breeds/landraces this breed was developed from, and timeline
• Why the breed was developed, if for a purpose
• Recognition/status details on a per-organization basis, including dates when known; use chronological, or international-on-down, or some other sensible order (not random, and not personally preferential)
• Derived breeds, if any (years are again relevant)
• For complicated cases, separate subsections may be needed, e.g. "Origin" and "Recognition and status".

Red flags:

• Excessive detail about breed founders (especially if it seems to be mythologizing or implausible, or is eulogizing or anecdotal in tone). Breed articles are not biographies.
• Excessive detail about foundation stock specimens. Breed articles are not for trivia or fancruft like best-in-show animal "biographies"
• Conflict of interest with regard to breed founders or other breeders (keep in mind that people who write articles for fancier publications, registry yearbooks, etc., are often personally connected to, or are themselves, high-profile breeders, and thus may not be sources independent of the subject, even if their publication is usually otherwise considered reliable.
• Lists of breed champions; these animals are not relevant for encyclopedic purposes except in rare cases, which usually have their own articles. Breed articles are not indexes of competition winners or their owners.
• Poorly sourced alleged controversies.
• Purported folkloric origin stories that aren't well sourced, or which are claimed to be myths or legends (those words are not synonyms of folktales or folklore, but have specific cultural meanings that are unlikely to apply)

• Summary of overall features, including all defining traits as agreed upon by all/most standards; use plain English as much as possible, and link to any animal fancier/husbandry jargon and terms-of-art; stubs might not go any further yet. Both organizational and non-organizational (e.g. animal breed guide book) sources may be useful here.
• Fully developed, this will have subsections such as Body, Head, Tail, Limbs, Coat, Eyes, etc., giving points of conformation, with organizational sources. Explain non-trivial differences between various organizations' standards.
• Description of major (i.e. named) variants or sub-breeds that are typically included in the same breed standard as a division, class or variation. This is usually an embedded list, but use {{Main}} and a subsection if a variant has its own article (see WP:Summary Style). Do not capitalize color or pattern terms, only the base name of the variant/sub-breed as distinguished from the main breed (e.g. Manx Longhair or Toy Poodle, but not Mackerel Tabby Manx Longhair or Brindle Toy Poodle))
• Serious and disqualifying faults, with organizational sources
• For complex articles, subsectioning may be needed, e.g. "Color divisions", "Size classes", "Variants and sub-breeds", etc., depending on what terminology is being used by the sources and what facts need to be covered without sections looking like a "wall of text". For stubs, do not create "micro-sections" in anticipation of more information being added – just write a concise Appearance section with the available information.

Red flags:

• An obsessive level of detail about standards of points
• Copyright violations such as copy–pasting from breed standards
• Editorializing about one standard vs. another
• Advocacy of any trait as "true", "better", "the proper type", etc.
• Weasel words
• Unexplained/unlinked jargon and fancier-cruft geekery

• Common medical problems associated with the breed
• Lifespan (in species where this varies notably by breed)
• Grooming (only if there are special needs)
• Breeding
• Genetics (need not be its own paragraph or subsection, if better worked into medical and/or breeding material)
• If complicated, subsections may be needed, such as for breeding in the case of hybrids like Bengal (cat), or controversial genetic disorders about which much has been written as in the case of hip dysplasia and German shepherds

Red flags:

• "How-to" information or advice of any kind
• Non-encyclopedic tone, including editorializing and anecdotes
• Fringe ideas, pseudoscience and urban legends
• Weasel words

Lead in with something like "Major cat breed publications and organizations concur on the following traits" or something, for personality matters that have pretty much universal agreement. For others, qualify with something like "various breeders have suggested", etc., if sourceable only to tertiary sources, or simply omit.

• Any behavioral trait required or forbidden by breed standards
• Activities (often in one or more subsections) – usually optional – working: herding, police, etc.; and/or competitive: agility, show, racing, etc.)
• Behavioral traits or patterns (and facts about them, such as genetics) that have been verified by scientific studies reported in peer-reviewed journals

Red flags:

• Unsourced claims of any kind (including weasel-wording) about behavior, not limited to: temperament and disposition, intelligence (problem-solving, trainability and suitability for working tasks, curiosity), instinct, passivity or aggressiveness, preferences or fears, mating behaviors, compatibility with children or other animals, in-born ability (hunting, homing), etc. Any trait that is not something just physically observable, like height or color, is behavioral.
• Breeder-sourced "facts", those from pet blogs, breed clubs and other generally unreliable, self-published sources, and any which seem to promote products or services or which may be exaggerating qualities of the breed for promotional reasons
• Gushing, puffery or "peacock wording" inserted by fans boosters of the breed, including exaggeratory claims, over-generalizations and extrapolations, enthusiastic trivia and any other forms of editorializing, anecdotal material, or non-encyclopedic tone. Fannish editors may go out of their way to (unreliably) source such claims to tertiary-source or otherwise questionable fancier books, websites and magazines.
• "How-to" information or advice of any kind
• Any claims that obviously just apply to any normal, domesticated individual of the species (They are friendly and curious, and often bond closely with their owners.
• Any claims that cannot be proven: The breed is especially intelligent, and behaves more like an X than a Y.
• Any claims that are unlikely to be generally applicable vs. a purely individual trait observed anecdotally by some owners: They tend to follow their owners around, are extremely fond of jumping, and get along well with children and small dogs.
• Any claims that are sourced only to tertiary sources (sources that gather information from elsewhere and republish it in summary form without citation of the original sources in detail), and which are claims not consistently agreed upon by a preponderance of such sources. For example, a breed may legitimately be said to be particularly active and athletic if most sources about breeds of this species say that about the breed, but not simply because one article in a fancier magazine did. Pet and livestock periodicals in particular are often not reliable sources on behavioral characteristics because they are written in whole or in part by breeders or others with a vested, conflicted interest, and are beholden to advertisers with such interests.
• Any other claim about generalizable behavior that is not consistently a part of the breed's published standards of points. Such claims are automatically controversial because they usually cannot be proven without controlled tests, which are rarely ever done. Any alleged behavioral information with no or poor sources may be removed if challenged, per WP:Verifiability policy, and its sourcing should be discussed on the talk page until a resolution is reached by consensus about whether its inclusion is appropriate and properly sourced.

• Famous real-life, named specimens, with somewhere to link that has sources (e.g. own article or mentioned in owner's article)
• Use as a logo, mascot, or other symbol
• For complex cases, subsections may be needed, e.g. "Famous breedname here", "Fictional breedname here", Use as a national symbol of country here", "In culture here folklore", etc.

Red flags:

• Champion specimens in pet shows, livestock competition, races, or other contests, not otherwise notable (i.e. no article or article section yet to which to link)
• A pet of a notable person that is not mentioned by name and sourced in the biographical article on the person
• Characters so minor they are not mentioned by name and breed in the articles on the works in which they allegedly appear (or they appear in non-notable works – nothing to link to with a source cited for the character)
• Assumptive assertions that a particular fictional character is a particular breed based on appearances and not on a statement in the work or reliable sources about it.
• Claims of cultural significance (folklore, tradition, symbology, etc.) unsupported by reliable sources.
• Mention of a work – piece of fiction, a law, etc. – without enough information to firmly identify it
• Too few entries: If there aren't at least 3 such factoids, put them at end of "History" section and don't create a PopCult section at all, much less subsections, which are only needed when the list gets long.

• Perhaps two to ten encyclopedic quality photos showing differences between color/coat types, etc., formatted with ... markup, per Help:Gallery tag

Red flags:

• Images that do not depict exemplary specimens
• Images that are not 100% certain to be of this breed at all
• Images of less than encyclopedic quality (but some image is usually better than none)

• Similar breeds/landraces/types
• Any other topic that relates strongly to the breed

Red flags:

• Redundant entries that already appear in the prose
• Pointless entries (overlinking, to think only peripherally related if at all)
• Entries that can be worked into the prose, which in a non-stub article is usually all of them.

• Inline citations, formatted with {{Cite web}} (and for later occurrences of the same source, ) inline in the article, and {{reflist}} in the "References" section. While WP:Citing sources accepts an alternative structure in the form of a "Footnotes" or "Notes" section and a "Bibliography" section tied to it, for formatting of Harvard referencing, very few breed articles use this format and it is deprecated by WP:WikiProject Animals and it's specific "child" projects in favor of continued consistent use of a "References" section and WP:Citation Style 1.
• As a last and temporary resort, non-footnoted "general references"

Red flags:

• Non-footnoted "general references"; they are useless for WP:Verifiability purposes. If already present, do not delete, of course; format with {{Ref begin}}{{More footnotes|{{subst:DATE}}}}...{{Ref end}}.

• Very rare cases of offline sources that are too tertiary to cite as references in the article, yet good enough to refer readers to.

Red flags:

• Any entries that can be reworked as cited sources instead (which is usually all of them); preferably cite inline in the article, or at least move into "general references" for the short term. If too tertiary but still of some value and online, should be moved to "External links".

• Breed clubs, fancier groups, breed-specific rescue organizations and the like
• Image galleries.
• Articles in other encyclopedias (and other tertiary sources not worth citing as references)

Red flags:

• Links to breed standards (they're already in the infobox).
• Link to breeders, indexes of breeders, blogs, supplies retailers, or any other low-value, spammy links, per WP:External links, WP:Spam and WP:Conflict of interest
• A legitimate link that would be better as a source than an extlink; move it to general references.