Talk:Pal (dog)/GA1

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

GA Review
Hey ItsLassieTime. I think this article is a good start and has some excellent potential, but I don't think it's ready for GA status yet. Rather than fail it right away, however, I wanted to place it On Hold and give you a chance to look over my suggestions. If you like, you can go ahead and try to address them all before I fail the article. My suggestion, however, would be that I fail it for this first time, then you take your time, consult other sources and improve the article at your own pace. Then I'd recommend you nominate it again, during which time I would be more than happy to review it once again. Let me know what you think. But in any event, here are my suggestions.

Right off the bat: '''!!! THERE ARE FEW MATERIALS ON LASSIE THAT DON'T REPEAT WHAT HAS ALL READY BEEN STATED IN COLLINS' BOOK. WHAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE ITS RELEASE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH LATER GENERATIONS AND IN MY OPINION NOT REALLY ESSENTIAL TO THIS ARTICLE. PASSING MENTION OF PAL'S DESCENDANTS IS ENOUGH HERE. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of information about Pal that are mentioned in the Lassie page on the character, but that are flat-out missing from this one. I think the root of the problem is that this is almost entirely a one-source article. Aside from the one reference to The Guide to United States Popular Culture, every bit of cited information in here comes from Lassie: A Dog's LIfe (and I'm willing to be the other fact could have been found in that source as well). Granted, a GA doesn't have to be as comprehensive as an FA, but in this case I think it hurts the quality of the article and some more sources should be added.

'''!!! I CAN'T DO A LOT OF SEARCHING FOR THESE "FACTS" ON THE LASSIE PAGE. I'M SURPRISED YOU'RE REFERENCING UNCITED "FACTS" ON THAT PAGE AS GOSPEL TRUTH AND EXPECT ME TO TRACK THE SOURCES DOWN. WHY IS THAT PAGE CORRECT AND MINE IS NOT? BECAUSE I CITE ONLY ONE RELIABLE SOURCE FROM A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE PER WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. SLAP ONE OF THOSE "REFERENCES NEEDED" BANNERS ON THE LASSIE PAGE. FOR ALL WE KNOW THEY COULD BE FANTASIES TO SEND ME ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE TO A DEAD END. THE LASSIE PAGE STRIKES ME AS ONE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE LASSIE BREEDING PROGRAMS ANYWAY. !!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Below are some specific examples of Pal-related facts over at the Lassie page. Some of them are cited there, some aren't, but at the very least you can use that page as a jumping off point to find some of those sources...
 * Pal used the stage name "Lassie" in at least some of the MGM films...

'''!!! BOTH ARE MENTIONED IN COLLINS BOOK BUT I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE CRITICAL TO THE PAL ARTICLE. RUDD WEATHERWAX OWNED THE DOG AND ITS HIS NAME THAT APPEARS IN THE CREDITS OF THE FILMS AND TELEVISION SERIES -- NOT INN'S.  WILL INCLUDE THO. !!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Benji-trainer Frank Inn (aka Frank Freeman) assisted with the training of Pal on the MGM studio lot.
 * The role of Frank Weatherwax, Rudd's brother, in training Pal

'''!!! I DON'T HAVE TO CHECK OUT THEIR UNCITED MATERIAL. IF THERE IS A CONTRADICTION THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE EDITOR OF THE LASSIE ARTICLE NOT ME. I'VE CITED MY SOURCES. NOT ALL STATEMENTS IN THE 'LASSIE' ARTICLE ARE SUPPORTED BY THEIR CITATIONS ANYWAY. I'VE FOUND ERRORS IN CHECKING THEIR STATEMENTS AGAINST THEIR SOURCES. IN ALL HONESTY, I DON'T THINK MY ARTICLE ON PAL SHOULD BE DENIED GA STATUS BECAUSE THE EDITORS OF THE 'LASSIE' ARTICLE HAVE NEGLECTED TO CITE THEIR SOURCES ACCURATELY. MY SOURCE IS FROM A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE. !!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lassie page claims Rudd Weatherwax acquired Pal when the owner couldn't pay the bill. You'd have to check for a verifiable source on this, but it should be checked because it could potentially contradict your article.

'''!!! I DOUBT IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE BOOK THAT WASN'T SCRUTINIZED BY COLLINS. A GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH REVEALS NOTHING AND THE BOOK IS SO OLD IT'S NOT LIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE IN LIBRARIES. I DOUBT IF I CAN ACCESS IT. I QUESTION WHETHER THE PUBLISHER IS A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE ANYWAY. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VANITY PRESS. COLLINS IS PREFERABLE BECAUSE HE'S A SECONDARY SOURCE, MORE RECENT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HE HAS CACHET OF A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE AS DEFINED IN THE WP RELIABLE SOURCES. !!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rudd Weatherwax co-wrote a book called "The story of Lassie, his discovery and training from puppyhood to stardom" about Pal's rise to international stardom. Ideally, this book should be consulted as a source for this article, but at the VERY least the book itself should be mentioned in the page.

Pal's descendants: '''!!! DONE. HAVE MADE A PARAGRAPH. !!!'''
 * This whole list doesn't really belong in this article; the page is about Pal, not about the Lassie character or any of these other dogs. This information should be moved to the Lassie page and/or a new list page about the dogs who played Lassie. Then, this section should be rewritten as a paragraph of pose talking about the fact that the next X number of dogs to play Lassie were all bred by Pal, including Lassie Junior, Spook, Baby, Mire and Hey Hey.

!!! MIGHT CONSIDER THIS FOR THE FUTURE, NOT NOW.!!!
 * Note: (If you do make a list, there should be a link added to the top of this section linking to that main article, like   or whatever you name it.)

'''!!! ONLY THE DOGS WHO PLAYED LASSIE IN THE ORIGINAL TELEVISION SERIES ARE MENTIONED IN MY LIST. HAVE EDITED THE LIST AND INCLUDED OTHER DESCENDANTS AND THE CONTROVERSIES. !!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this list doesn't appear to be complete. According to the Lassie article, there are several more dogs that are part of Pal's bloodline including "Howard" and "Hey Hey II". The article also mentions that fans were angry about the fact that producers started using dogs not directly bred from Pal. All that should be included in the new prose-paragraph version of this section.

General comments: '''!!! DONE. !!!'''
 * Avoid short sentences like "Pal died in 1958." and "Producers were pleased." I removed some and merged them into other sentences.

'''!!! DONE. I'M CONCERNED THERE WILL NOT BE MANY SOURCES COMING FORTH. !!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some sections include no citations at all until the very end of the section. You should include a citation at least at the end of each paragraph. When you add more sources, I think this will solve the problem.

Now, on to some per section comments...

Under MGM's "Lassie" films: '''!!! Done. !!!'''
 * "Pal's success in Lassie Come Home in 1943 led to six more MGM films." Can you add a colon to the end of this sentence and list the films? I know they are in the filmography, but this sentence tripped me up without having the titles of the movies included.

Under Television series: '''!!!DONE. REWROTE WITH FOCUS ON PAL. ELIMINATED SUMMARIES OF PLOTS.!!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) !!!DONE.!!! ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed "Campbell's Soup became the show's sole sponsor" as this is related to the series, but has nothing to do with Pal. There are a few other instances in here where you border on discussing the show or other Lassie-related subjects (like Weatherwax in the MGM's Lassie films section). You might want to look through and try to reword some things to avoid that and bring the focus back to Pal.
 * Can you put in here, some time after his retirement is mentioned, that Pal became known as "The Old Man" around the set. He's referred to that way in a few quotes, but I think this should be added to give it the proper context. You should mention that this is meant as a sign of respect (especially since below, I'm going to suggest you drop that portion of the quote in the Death section).

Under Death '''!!!DONE. SIMPLY DELETED THE POV AS THE DESCRIPTION IS FROM COLLINS AND NOT ATTRIBUTED TO A SPECIFIC PERSON.!!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) '''!!!DONE. REWRITTEN AS SUGGESTED.!!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) '''!!!SOURCES DO NOT STATE HIS CAUSE OF DEATH. MAY BE HIS OWNERS DID NOT WANT THE CAUSE REVEALED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOG COULD HAVE DIED AFTER FALLING DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS BECAUSE SOMEBODY LEFT A DOOR OPEN OR SOMETHING.!!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) !!!DONE!!! ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "By 1958, Pal was a cranky and irritable eighteen-year-old well past his prime." This reads like POV. Could you reword it, maybe attribute it to somebody to get rid of the POV? Like, for example, "...well past his prime, according to his owners" or whoever is saying this.
 * "By the time I joined the show (1957) Pal was too old to come to the set much anymore...He was the dog that everyone called 'The Old Man', and it was a term of respect. As young as I was, I recognized how much that dog meant to Rudd. Even though he was blind, deaf, and getting stiff, Pal had the run of the house. Rudd loved that old dog as much as anyone could love an animal or person." This is a really long quote and should be broken apart, as per WP:Quotations. Most of it could be better explained in the context of the article, rather than in a quote. So in other words, my suggestion would be to write in the prose of the article that Paul was too old to come to the set much by 1957 and that he was getting blind, deaf and stiff. Then maybe this portion of the quote could be used: "As young as I was, I recognized how much that dog meant to Rudd. ... Rudd loved that old dog as much as anyone could love an animal or person."
 * "Pal died in 1958." is too short a sentence, for one thing, but also, what was his cause of death? I'm guessing it was old age and/or natural causes, if not a specific illness, but if that's the case even that much should be included.
 * "'He loved Pal like he loved his sons," Robert Weatherwax recalled...'" Who is Robert Weatherwax? A relative of Rudd, I imagine, but what relation? That context really needs to be included here.

Under Film and television: '''!!!DONE. HAVE ADDED BOXES.!!!''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than the current bulleted list, this should really be a filmography box like those any of these given actor pages (here, here or here all of which are GAs). After all, he's an actor just like any of these guys, even though he's a dog actor. Can you change it into a box like one of those?

CRITERIA REVIEW: A good article is: '''!!! DONE. !!! !!! DONE. !!! !!! DONE. !!!'''
 * 1) Well-written: Prose and layout are OK with a few exceptions (most notably the short sentences, which can be easily repaired). The lead is fine. Article mostly fits the manual of style, although an improved filmography is suggested.
 * 1) Factually accurate and verifiable: Relies heavily on one source, and crucial info is missing...
 * 2) Broad in its coverage: There is some unnecessary detail, most especially in the list of other dogs who played Lassie. That section must be re-written in a more Pal-focused context (identifying the dogs as bred from Pal's bloodline, rather than listing them all with facts about them that have little to do with Pal.)
 * 1) Neutral: Article is neutral, with the exception of the one sentence in the "Death" section, which can be easily fixed.
 * 1) Stable: Fine.
 * 2) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Fine.

Let me know whether you prefer to leave this On hold and go through the changes, or to have it Fail and renominate it after working on it at your own pace. Once again, if you choose the latter, contact me when you renominate it and I'd be happy to review it again. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'''*I THINK THE ARTICLE IS UP TO SNUFF AT THIS POINT WITH THE MANY RECOMMENDATIONS UNDERTAKEN. THE ARTICLE READS WELL AND WHILE NOT UP TO FA STANDARDS AMPLY SATISFIES THE GA CRITERIA. GA STATUS IS NOT CONCERNED WITH AN EXHAUSTIVE TREATMENT OF THE TOPIC AND THIS ARTICLE I BELIEVE INCLUDES AS MUCH AS WILL EVER BE KNOWN ABOUT PAL. SURE, SOME ANECDOTAL MATERIAL MIGHT TURN UP BUT THE MAJOR ASPECTS AND FACTS ARE COVERED HERE.

I'M SEARCHING FOR THE BOOK "THE STORY OF LASSIE". BOOK SERVICES ALIBRIS HAS ONE AVAILALBE FOR $595.00 AND ABEBOOKS HAS THE BRITISH EDITIONS FOR LESS BUT THOSE ARE IN AUSTRALIA, ENGLAND, AND FRANCE. A COUPLE OF THE US EDITIONS ARE FOUND AT $40 AND $60. I CAN'T AFFORD THEM. I'M GOING TO CHECK WITH THE PUBLIC LIBRARY BUT I AM CERTAIN NOTHING WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE 35 MEMBER LIBRARIES WITHIN MY COUNTY. THEY CAN DO AN INTERLIBRARY LOAN SEARCH. EVEN THEN I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC. LASSIE FANS WOULD HAVE RIPPED-OFF THE BOOK YEARS AGO.

THE MAIN ASPECTS OF THE TOPIC ARE ADEQUATELY COVERED HERE, PROSE IS REASONABLY WELL WRITTEN, NEUTRAL, IMAGES, AND STABLE. IF THE ARTICLE FAILS (AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY IT WOULD) I'LL TAKE IT TO COMMUNITY REASSESSMENT. I DON'T WANT A 'FAIL'. I'D RATHER DELIST IT "FOR FURTHER WORK" BECAUSE A 'FAIL' TAINTS AN ARTICLE FOREVER. NO OTHER REVIEWER WILL WANT TO TOUCH IT AND READERS SUSPECT THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WITH IT. THE EDITOR IS TAINTED TOO. IT ISN'T WORTH IT. FAILING ARTICLES SERVES NO PURPOSE UNLESS THEY'RE NONSENSE OR DELIBERATE VANDALISM TO IRK REVIEWERS. ARTICLES SHOULD BE UPGRADED OR DELISTED. I'VE FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND UPGRADED THE ARTICLE. I BELIEVE IT PASSES GA CRITERIA WHICH SPEAKS TO DECENT ARTICLES NOT EXHAUSTIVE ARTICLES. WHILE IT MAY NOT ANSWER EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS IT DOES PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW WHICH IS ALSO ALLOWED AT GA. LET ME KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION. DON'T FAIL IT -- I'D RATHER DELIST IT.''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Book references
I saw this article listed at GAC, and I wanted to make a point regarding its referencing. As per CITE, specific page numbers should be used for book references. Because the main source for this article is a book, it is important to differentiate which page the cited material comes from, rather than listing a blanket range that covers over one hundred pages. This would also help plump up the number of citations, which at the moment seems rather lacking. María ( habla con migo ) 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can do that -- as soon as the reiewer requests it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what "the reviewer" suggests or requests, my comment directly correlates to the MOS. Sometimes reviewers miss something, or are not aware of certain facets or guidelines, which is where others may step in to suggest things in order to make an article better fulfill the GA criteria.  So, no need to dismiss the point just because it wasn't brought up by the self-designated reviewer. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * She's right...but I'm also requesting it anyway, so it's a moot point. lol --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The pages have been entered in the reference. Thanks Maria, I like it! ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant, but you're heading in the right direction. See Robert Sterling Yard's refs for an example of what style is typically used with book references. See how the book is listed in full only once (under "References"), and then referred to thereafter in shorthand in each citation under "Notes"? Now, since there's only one book ref used for this article, I would suggest making the first citation (the one after "Pal was judged not of the highest standards and sold as a pet-quality dog") list all of the ref info (author name, year, full title, publisher, ISBN, etc). Then you can use a shorthand ref for the rest of the citations that point to the book: "Collins, pp. 6–7", for example. I hope this helps. Whoops, and the book reference is missing publisher info -- the city. María ( habla con migo ) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Maria! That looks good! I like it much better than the other way. Thanks again! (Hope I did it right. I deleted the References section for just the Notes.) ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, nice work! And now you have 18 citations, which looks a lot more credible. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review, Part 2

 * Note: ItsLassieTime, I struck the objections that have been addressed above, but I've moved the rest of my remaining objections down to this new section because, quite frankly, your habit of using CAPS and putting everything in  !!! BOLD LIKE THIS !!!  was making your responses difficult to read. I'm glad to see you've gotten away from that style in responding to Marie. PLEASE DISREGARD THE ABOVE GA REVIEW SECTION and focus on the remaining suggestions below...


 * I also want to note that I think you're doing a good job addressing the objections so far. Your changes in filmography box, the new legacy section, and the reduction of some of the non-Pal plot summaries and other info in particular are very good. I am confident now that we can get this article to GA status after all, so don't worry about it failing.


 * Also, a few words on the whole "one-source" thing. As you yourself point out, you don't have the burden of comprehensiveness here that you would have with a GA, so I'm not going to hold up the article just based on this issue, but if you ever try to move this article to GA status, I truly think it could get hung up on this. I would encourage you to try to seek more sources if you ever get to that point. You say, "THERE ARE FEW MATERIALS ON LASSIE THAT DON'T REPEAT WHAT HAS ALL READY BEEN STATED IN COLLINS' BOOK." That may be so, but if you can attribute some of those facts to another legitimate source instead of Collins book, it will at the very least lend the article more legitimacy by showing that there are other references to this information aside from this one, single source. But, regardless, let me reiterate that this is not an objection for this GA nomination, just a suggestion for the future. I didn't mean to send you on a "wild goose chase" seeking facts that are improperly referenced on the Lassie page, nor did I mean for you to treat that page as "gospel truth." I just hoped you could use that page as a jumping off point to seek some of that info and look into more sources for this article.


 * On a related note, I've added two new sources that I found, one from a Chicago Tribune article, and one from a Mail on Sunday article. (If you like, I can email you the full text of both sources.) For the most part, those articles repeated info that was already present in the Collins source, but with a few new details. I added those in and, in some cases, replaced altogether the Collins citation. This enables us to reduce the article's over-dependence on the Collins source, and also to add a few more legitimate sources; the fact that the info is repeated also lends more credibility to the accuracy of the Collins source. But more importantly, it illustrates the fact that by simply taking some time to search for a few more sources, we improved the article's credibility and were able to include more information in the article. (It even allowed us to include some of the uncited info from Lassie, including the fact that Pal was given to Weatherwax in lieu of the training cost.) Please look at those citations and changes I made, and let me know if you are OK with them.
 * I'm thrilled with these! I'm glad something besides the Collins book has been found! ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, on to the remaining suggestions...


 * Please continue to work on the reference issue that Maria has brought up. I believe she is absolutely right that it will bump up the currently-dismal number of citations.


 * Under Television Series: "Weatherwax's brother Frank was training a mutt for the film The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T and steered its eleven-year-old star Tommy Rettig to the Lassie production. The field for the role of the boy in Lassie narrowed to three young actors, and the final decision was left to Pal. The boys spent a week at Weatherwax's North Hollywood home, and, as Rettig later recalled, "Lassie liked me better than he did the other two kids." Rettig won the role, and filming for the two pilots of Lassie began in 1954 with Pal portraying Lassie in both." I think this bit was added after my review, and I'm wondering if this can be scaled back to focus more heavily on Pal's role here, something like this: ''The field for the role of the boy in Lassie was narrowed to three young actors, but the final decision was left to Pal. After spending a week with the boys at Weatherwax's North Hollywood home, Pal seemed to like eleven-year-old Tommy Rettig more than the other two. Rettig won the role based on Pal's response, and filming for the two pilots began in 1954, with Pal portraying Lassie in both."
 * I placed the paragraph as is (it can't be bettered!) in the television section. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my suggestion above, I removed the reference to Frank Weatherwax. I know you felt this wasn't particularly crucial, but I just want a brief mention of it somewhere in 'Birth and early years. I suggest adding something like "Rudd's brother Frank Weatherwax, who trained dogs for such films as The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, assisted Rudd in training Pal."
 * Done, but I can't find a source for "assisted Rudd in training Pal." I've searched for Frank Weatherwax's bio or obituary but haven't found one, and the Collins book mentions Frank but never in connection with Pal's training. I believe some of the early TV episodes give him credit, "Lassie is owned and trained by Frank and Rudd Weatherwax" or something similar. I'll have to check. Also found one on-line source stating Frank was part owner of Pal. I've included the information and source at the end of the "Birth" section. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding The story of Lassie, his discovery and training from puppyhood to stardom, I was never suggesting this article would fail if you didn't fork out $595 and use it as a source. (Amazon has it for $42, but that's neither here nor there.) If the book was attainable, then I think it would be ideal to use it as a source for a future FA nomination. However, for the purposes of this article, I think it should be mentioned in the prose of the article that this book was written about Pal's life. It would simply be a matter of dropping somewhere in the article (Perhaps Legacy) a sentence like this: "In 1950, Rudd Weatherwax and co-author John H. Rothwell co-wrote a book about Pal's life called The story of Lassie, his discovery and training from puppyhood to stardom." You can use your Alibris site as the source, or Amazon.com.
 * I've placed the information in "Legacy" with Amazon.com. as the source. Interestingly, most of the used copies available are the British edition. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're nearly home-free, ItsLassieTime! Keep up the good work!--Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Criteria
A good article is:
 * 1) Well-written: Prose is fine, MOS is good
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources look OK, no original research
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, unneeded detail has been trimmed
 * 4) Neutral: Yes
 * 5) Stable: Yes
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Well done, ItsLassieTime. Glad you stuck with this. Congrats for the Pass. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)