First this article does not talk about a class of dog in the sense that a poodle is a class of dog It talks about a use of certain types of dogs To chase quarry This sets a context for these dogs the matter of fact tone suggests approval of this use of a dog as does very much so that the first requirement for a working dog is that someone should work it Describing what the dogs do as work is strongly biased to a positive view of it I do not strongly object to this although it could be rephrased into a voice that took things less for granted Second many readers will not automatically realise that one is talking about dogs that could be used in fox hunting yet this is primarily what they are used for at least in the UK The article largely discusses terrier work in the UK framing its history in terms of enclosure which is not an issue in the States or elsewhere because enclosure practices differed in other places So the intro should note this and having done so making note in some detail why it is controversial not just that it is serves to balance out a piece that is far too sympathetic to one POV Third the article on the Hunting Act is not specific on this issue and it s appropriate to give it in some detail if it is appropriate to go into as much detail about terrier work in the UK which the article does You should either slash the article to its generic elements and put the slashings into an article on Working terriers in the United Kingdom or accept that given the form of the discussion a focus on UK responses is appropriate