Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dog/archive1

Dog
Dogs clearly have an important role in society, and the article is pretty good as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)


 * Object - Unfortunately, standards are a little higher than "pretty good" when it comes to featured articles, and subject matter isn't considered at all. There are a number of stubby sections that I'd like to see expanded... bascially, if a section (or subsection) consists of only one paragraph, or worse, one sentence, you should consider either expanding it (preferred) or absorbing it into another section, making sure to use complete paragraphs and propper organization of information.  "Intellegence", for instance needs to be a more thorough summary of the dog intelligence article, even though it links there.  The "Physical Characteristics" section is a pretty good summary, but might use too many images&mdash; on my resolution (admittably high and widescreened) the images actually expand past the article text a bit too much, creating unnessesary and unsightly whitespace.  On the other hand, the "Scenting" subsection could probably use a bit more expansion, esspecially since scent is one of the main traits of dogs.  Multiple paragraphs would make reading easier, instead of jamming everything in one "run-on" paragraph covering multiple topics.  I'm also concerned about some casual tones of voice, and the focus on certain trivial facts in prominant locations.  Under diet, advice to pet owners is given, which wikipedia is not about.  Present it academically, not as a "How To" book.  Significant reorganization of information should be considered. Fieari 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: The language is no where near "brilliant", in fact clearly below par. Sentences like "For dogs that do not have traditional jobs" rule out this as a FA. Similarly problematic are "full fledged family members" or "In other cultures, some dogs are used as food" (all this only from the lead)--ppm 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per both above. While it is decently referenced (though more of those references being more inline would be nice), the article needs some pretty heavy clean-up work and expansion in places. Staxringold 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)