For a critique to be meaningful requires a format and training, and that exists within the RKC for those who are interested. A critique requires balance, no dog is perfect, no dog is without fault, and every dog has its virtues. I personally think you should start with the head and work your way through the anatomy of the dog, finishing with character (which must be faultless in an adult) and your observations on his movement.
A critique should be professionally written, choosing terms and phrases that best describe the dog, you are not writing a story or a text to your friend, this is an item that will be published as a representative of your opinion of the animal. If you have the know how to judge, but not to put your findings into the written word, then use charts and seek help ... we are not all academics, there is no shame in asking for help.
Critiques are important to exhibitors, and verbal critiques when you see what the judge is seeing are educational for all, but these are only accepted at breed events. Written critiques which are published all over the dog scene should be mandatory and should be an informative, impartial, detailed description of the dog shown on the day. In my opinion, judges who fail to submit critiques should be taken to task by the RKC, entries are expensive and we get very little out of it, sometimes only a card ... Again, in my opinion, judges who are repeat offenders of not submitting critiques should be removed from their privileged positions!
