Refs should be outside of punctuation,[1] not inside [2]. hi people*Please look over WP:OVERLINK, there are multiple examples of linkingconsecutivewords and linking irrelevent words (really, what use is linking to Germanic language and color in an article on dogs?). also links to common forms of measurement should be avoided (centimeter?).
Taxonomy and evolution should be at the beginning of the article, right after Etymology - don't these two seem to relate?
"Disorders and diseases" begins with two paragraphs that both discuss genetic diseases and then diseases that are also found in humans - anthropocentrism aside, this is very redundant (hip dysplasia is mentioned twice), and the paragraphs need to be merged/reworded.
citations do not[1] belong in the middle of sentences,[2] you need to move them to the proceeding punctuation.[3]
WP:ITALICS there is almost never a need to "quote" something and italicize it in an article, additionally italics have very specific uses. review the guideline and make the needed fixes.
MOS:ABBR ASPCA should be written out, and the later term SPCAs probably should be also.
WP:MOSBOLD do a quick Ctrl+F for bold text, it should only be in the lead and for definition lists.
When discussing terms - they are italicized, not "quoted". e.g. "Median longevity" is wrong
The Health section (and subsections) has an anthropocentric tone that needs to be removed. Some comparisons (like with hearing or visual acuity) are useful, others are not (like we both get cancer). This also applies to "Development".
Besides the "Taxonomy and evolution" section noted in 1A, the "Nutrition" section seems to have some goal of promoting a vegetarian diet for dogs - this is more pronounced with the missing citations. Additionally, I'm not too fond of the source used to discuss specifics on nutrition because it makes claims like meat lacks iron - which is used to support the sentence, "All-meat diets may not be recommended for dogs as they lack vital components of a healthy diet."
"There is conclusive evidence that dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago. however most believe domestication to have occurred much earlier. The evidence comes from two primary sources: mtDNA studies and archaeological findings, neither of which are conclusive." Bad punctuation aside, this needs to be reworded so the different evidence is more explicit.
"...dogs are likely descended from a handful of domestication events including a small number of founding females..." are founding females really a domestication "event"?
"...native to America..." North or South?
"...the location of maximal genetic divergence, and assumes that hybridization does not occur, and that breeds remain geographically localized." you only need one and.
"...dogs generally share attributes with their wild ancestors, the wolves. Dogs are predators and scavengers, possessing sharp teeth and strong jaws.... Although selective breeding has changed the appearance of many breeds, all dogs retain basic traits from their distant ancestors." Empasized text is redundant.
"Although most breeds are memmetropic, one out of two Rottweilers have been found to be myopic." Why are we picking out Rotties? Because they are an exception? Then say this to provide context (like with bloodhounds, and French Bulldogs)
"In some breeds, the tail is traditionally docked to avoid injuries (especially for hunting dogs). It can happen that some puppies are born with a short tail or no tail in some breeds. This occurs more frequently for certain breeds, especially those breeds that are frequently docked and thus have no breed standard regarding the tail." These sentences have multiple issues with redundancy and flow - they need to be reworked.
"Some breeds of dogs are also prone..." What else were some breeds of dog said to be prone to? Remove also.
"...owners of dogs which may be at risk should learn about such conditions as part of good animal care." Instructional - remove
"As the breed standard has only to do with the externally observable qualities ...." This is a very long complicated sentence. Consider rephrasing or breaking it down.
"Dogs tend to be poorer than wolves and coyotes at observational learning..." This contradicts the earlier prose in the "Intelligence" section, stating that an experiment found dogs to perform better at observational learning.
