Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mutt (dog)

Mutt (dog)
Self-nom. I think it's ready for FA candidacy. It also deals with an issue (pet overpopulation) that I feel strongly about; the article is pretty thickly pro-mutt, but I want the word to get out there that mixed-breed dogs and cats are just as wonderful pets to have as purebreds. 259 21:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) (this bit edited at 15:56, 15 Aug 2004)
 * I think that the article is a little short. Specificially, the individual paragraphs are not well-developed; five of them have exactly one sentence each, the remainder seem to have at most three sentences each. A well-developed paragraph tends to have (this is by no means a set rule) five or more sentences. -- Emsworth 01:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but as I was introduced to it, the "6 sentence rule" was a maximum; paragraphs were supposed to have no more than 6 sentences. (Of course, when a writing assignment said "write a paragraph", no less than 6 was also normally implied.) To me, though, paragraphs aren't about number of sentences so much as organiztion of information. Also, I tend to write small paragraphs because readers will get bored by and skim over large ones. So I'm not sure I agree with your criterion. 259 04:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The 5-sentence per paragraph guideline is just that: a guideline. It is not a set rule. But a single sentence does not qualify as a paragraph. In this article, half the "paragraphs" (or, rather, blocks of text begun on new lines) have just a single sentence each. -- Emsworth 14:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that some of those paragraphs could've been combined. Thank you. I did some work on that. 259 15:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, after moving to mixed-breed dog. Elf | Talk 00:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) This article is very different from when I last saw it a couple of days ago, and a large number of errors or dubious claims have appeared, e.g., golden retriever is not a mix of 2 known breeds; Muttley is not a common name for mutts (I've known hundreds & have access toa database of many & there's not one muttley)--and this appeared in the first paragraph, removing "heinz 57" which is a far more common reference in my experience; I'm not aware of anyone who considers bitches who have mated with other breeds to be tainted but I'll confirm with more of my breeder friends; Pekapoo is not one of the most commonly named crossbreeds that I've encountered (and where we have no article on this one, we do have articles on other more common ones such as cockapoo or goldendoodle. And more. I'd like to work over this article and I have more info to add but I don't have time today, most likely. Elf | Talk 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Golden Retriver as mix of 2 breeds: That was there before I edited it, and I took it on faith to be correct. I will remove it. I'll also take out "Muttley", though I have known a couple dogs named that, and it's also the name of a dog in a somewhat obscure video game whose title escapes me. 259 02:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually what it said was "A mix of otherwise well recognized breeds, ... Many popular breeds today, such as the golden retriever, resulted from such cross-breeding" but it didn't say two breeds specifically. However, this does point out that the original material must all have been much less clear than I thought it was :-) and maybe it's a good thing that the whole thing is being rewritten from scratch. Elf | Talk 01:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I object. Pet overpopulation *is* important, but that is not the main thrust of this article. I have not looked at this article in a couple of weeks, but it has changed significantly. Unsubstantiated information has been thrown in, not necessily in context, controversial positions have not been identified as such; some interesting information has been tossed out and the whole article now needs to be reworked.  Some examples that jumped out at me (not using the exact wording here):  1. some pet experts recommend mixed-breeds over purebreeds.  Okay, what's a 'pet expert'?  And which ones have gone out on a limb suggesting crossbreeds over purebreeds?  Their proportion to the other group of pet experts?  2.  mixed breeds are cheaper in the U.S. than purebreeds.  Way too ambiguous.  This is true of some, but have you seen the price tags for some of the '-oodles' and '-poos'?  3.  Why should the article be all about the U.S. all of a sudden?

Quill 00:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Now support. Page has to be watched, though, erroneous edits keep making it back in. Quill 02:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to move the article to mixed-breed dog. Please address comments to Talk:Mutt (dog). Elf | Talk 03:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would have supported 'Mongrel', but this works for me. Quill 02:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. Rename/move article. I suggest Mongrel. Mutt is rather unencyclopaedic. (plus it needs a (dog) qualifier) zoney &#09608; &#09608; &#09608;  talk 13:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, move to mixed-breed dog, keep other terms as redirects. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:09, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
 * Objections: 1. Title does seem unencyclopaedic. I would prefer "mixed-breed dog." 2. The article uses colloquial phrases such as "playing off." 3. Metric units should be given first, and imperial ones in parantheses, not vice-versa. 4. Captions generally need complete sentences. 5. Image:MixedBreedAgilityTunnel wb.jpg should be repositioned. -- Emsworth 14:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC )
 * 1. Moved to mixed-breed dog. Mongrel would have the same problem that Mutt did--it's also a disambig page so would have to be Mongrel (dog). Mongrel includes link to mixed-breed dog now. 2. Fixed "played off" but I think I've looked at it too much to be able to see colloq's. If someone wanted to identify them, that would be nice. 3. Fixed. 4. Fixed. 5. Fixed. (6.) Also shortened & rewrote Appearance section to be (I hope) clearer & more readable. Elf | Talk 23:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. After reading it top to bottom, the prose seemed fine to me (I didn't notice any colloquilisms, for example). The only thing that seemed lacking as an introduction, and I added that myself. &rarr;Raul654 18:51, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)