Talk:Dog/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewing article. This is a large and intense topic, so please have patience. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cursory review
I've requested CitationBot to look over the article and make edits. Skimming over this article, there are a few concerns that should be addressed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The first ref should go, as a source for whether this is a distinct subspecies (which might be controversial) find the Linneaus source alluded to in the taxobox.
 * 2) Review WP:LEAD.  The current lead is not reflective of the length of the article, nor a proper summation - for something so long i would expect about three paragraphs, and given the variety of sections there should be more information in here.
 * 3) Remove the lead ref about coat types - unless this is such a controversial or extraordinary claim that it sparked a discussion to require it. (the other two refs are fine)
 * 4) I would also suggest Differences from wolves be moved to become the third section - if there was dicussion to have it placed at the end, i'll defer.
 * 5) There are problems with tone.  specifically, articles need to avoid words like should as this can be interpreted as instructional.  Sections with instructional tones and prose include: Disorders and diseases, Diet, Taxonomy and evolution (see next paragraph).  Additionally what is going on in the refs that are offering two links (one is cheaper, should you buy)?
 * The phrase in Taxonomy and evolution, "As noted above, care should be taken when considering the genetic evidence for the origins of dogs and dog breeds." is self-referencial and instructional - if there is controversy about the genetic evidence for breed origins, state that, provide examples, and then move on.
 * 1) I do not believe there is a strong reason to have a section like Dangerous substances.  We really need a section stating that alcohol, bleach, and detergent are dangerous if consumed? you could put a section like this on almost any animal's article.  I doubt the encyclopedic worth of this information and would prefer it either removed or trimmed down to noteworthy specifics like chocolate and antifreeze (both of which regularly recieve mainstream attention) - i'm sure you can use a ref to point to a site with a list of "things to keep away from your pet" but wikipedia shouldn't be that list.
 * 2) duplicate refs,[1][5][6][7] like this, should be avoided except for highly controversial claims or prose which combines facts from several sources.  In neccessary cases, they should go in numerical order (take a look at Mortality for an example).
 * 3) go over formatting with a fine-tooth comb - syntax like, "...years ago[91],[92][29]" and "...years.[93]). [no opening parentheses]" and "...dog racing & dog sledding." should have been caught before GAN.
 * 4) Topics that are noticeably missing: The huge role dogs have played in entertainment-specifically as performance animals (not just fiction, but circuses and other venues as well); Controversy over domestication of the dog and breeding practices; A section devoted to feral dogs (while mentioned throughout separate sections, it would seem that this a significant enough topic to merit specific exposition)


 * Hi Zappernapper,
 * Thanks for reviewing this article; its a pretty long article, so its great that you agreed to help out. Up front, I just wanted to respond to a number of your concerns about formatting issues. We weren't being intentionally lackadaisical about these issues; its just such a large article, and I am a very poor copy editor--my brain just doesn't notice these things.
 * Otherwise, I think most of what you brought up are things that have been considered as potential changes; I'll happily make these (e.g., removing the dangerous substances section will be a pleasure). I suppose the only real issue I have with your comments is related to your last:  could these sections that you are proposing including be an idiosyncratic preference? For instance, I don't feel that entertainment or performance is a central issue to the topic of dogs.  The article is pretty bloated as is, and I would like to remove marginal sections. Other potential sections, like a section on feral dogs, sounds reasonable, although slightly marginal.  I'll apply many of the fixes you propose and respond to others in a reasonable timeframe.  Thanks again for taking on this review! --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * just a quick response - late for work, hehe. I'm sure those no dearth of editors to this article - if everyone takes a section, the copyedit problems shouldn't take too long.  As for missing sections - certain kinds of articles require certain kinds of sections.  In any article on a subject which has gone from being painted on Minoan walls - to being made into a god - to being the driving force in a billion-dollar pet industry - to getting more air-time than any other non-human animal; i think all these things are equally important.  Additionally, the controversy section is there to add some balance to this article which at times can read as a nice article-for-dog-owners.  There's especially controversy about back-yard breeders, culling, docking - all of which is oddly absent. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?


 * A. Prose quality:
 * Most of the real problems with prose are covered by MOS guidelines below (1B). however the following are excerpted problem areas-


 * I'm ignoring the "Dangerous substances" section as I've already outlined the problems with it, and expect a serious rewrite or removal.
 * Review uses of parantheses, and see if the info couldn't be written offset by commas, rewritten into the prose, or outright removed.
 * "Taxonomy and evolution": consider a way to reorganize so that you aren't having to tell readers to refer to discussion elsewhere, and generally make it a little easier to follow, the intro paragraph to the section is fine; the mention of controversy and then the use of only one source for the claims suggests a non-neutral POV on the subject, I'm not an expert on the subject but what do other sources say about this topic? - fixed
 * The peculiarities of dogs' ears is mentioned in "Hearing", and "Differences from wolves", but absent in "Physical characteristics" - this would be a great place to expand on the topic which is discussed elsewhere in presumptive language (like we already know that they are usually floppy)
 * Instructional tone (from above)


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * remove or rephrase words like recently, soon, now, currently
 * WP:JARGON you should attempt to exaplain, in context, what these words mean - or use synonyms. Only as a last resort should you rely only on wikilinking: landraces, dyadic, mtDNA, founding females, maximal genetic divergence, hybridization, flicker rate, foveal region, dolichocephalic, memmetropic (probably should be emmetropic?), sympatric, alteration (in spaying and neutering)
 * WP:LEAD
 * Does not summarize article. Noticeably missing: Health, Differences from wolves.
 * Does not mention notable controversies - actually the lack of any coverage on controversy is also a problem, see 3A and 4.
 * WP:PUNCT really, most of these problems are incredibly silly things like not capitalizing the first letter in a sentence, forgetting a necessary comma, or adding one in bad place. Below is a current TOC of all the sections in this article, when someone has gone through and made sure it is free of errors, strike it out - also feel free to update it as the article changes.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * "...classified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the Gray Wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
 * "According to the Humane Society of the United States..."
 * Bob Barker and Drew Carey need to be sourced.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * "Modern dog breeds show more variation in size, appearance, and behavior than any other domestic animal." It was cited in the lead but not the body?
 * "The dog widely reported to be the longest-lived on record is "Bluey," purportedly born in 1910 in Australia. He died in 1939 at the age of 29.5 years." The article then goes on to say that the Bluey record is unverified, if this content can be verified as a well-known anecdote, then cite that and present it that way immediately... not three sentences later.
 * "Recent studies proved that spayed and neutered dogs in general are more aggressive towards people and other dogs, as well as more fearful and sensitive to touch than dogs than had not been sterilized,[80] though individual effects may vary." so where is the sourced counter-argument?
 * "One such class of cognition that involves the understanding that others are conscious agents, often referred to as theory of mind, is an area where dogs excel." Also consider rewording this to make it easier to read, and put theory of mind in "quotes".
 * There are cite tags in "Disorders and diseases", "Nutrition", "Reproduction"
 * C. No original research:
 * Neutral because of above problems (2A, 2B)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Missing sections are noted above; additionally - Dogs as food, dogs in science
 * B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The only questionable image is File:Cavalier King Charles Spaniel trio.jpg, where the caption states that it is an example of "with-breed variation" which is not discussed in the accompanying section. either expand the section or remove the image.  Also, we devote a whole paragraph to explaining what counter-shading is and yet a single image would be immensely helpful.

7. Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I really wanted to be able to place this article on hold. I am sure that lots of editors have spent a good deal of time on the article. But after carefully reading through the prose it seems like the nomination was a bit premature. remember, articles should be nominated only when the main contributors truly feel the article is ready to be promoted, the presence of cite tags and obvious MOS problems are a sign that work still needs to be done. I was only able to pass 3 out of the 8 criteria I explictly assessed - it comes to a 38%.  If i could have passed at least a majority of the criteria i would have merely put the article on hold.  I'm more than willing to answer any specific questions and to help editors here work towards a renomination in the future.  I hope to soon see this article reach beyond GA and become Featured within the near future.