Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mixed-breed dog/archive1

Review commentary

 * No original editor, messages left at Dogs and Tree of Life. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Message also left at WikiProject Dog breeds. Joelito (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Very few references for a FA and non of them are in-line references. A lot of POV OR can be found on the article as well, with sentences such as "many people enjoy owning mixed breeds". Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This needs massive re-writing. Potential OR, rather than prose (which isn't too bad), is the fundamental issue. It's an interesting and, I'd guess, fairly well-searched topic—no doubt for these reasons, lots of people have added nuggets of BS. In discussing intelligence of mixed-breeds we find: "For example, Benji, the hero in a series of films named for him, was a mixed-breed terrier." A fictional example used to support a real-world point?
 * Other random OR concerns:
 * "Some American registries and dog clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities." That's really how the term arose?
 * "Mixed breeds also tend to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm." What is the norm?
 * "If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane." No shit?
 * Ah wait, there is some info that suggests someone read a book. The norm is provided: "With each generation of indiscriminate mixing, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lb). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers." OK, this is good and encyclopedic, if we have a source.
 * "It's important to note that..." I just love "it's important to note that...". It helps you clearly identify non-encyclopedic writing.
 * "Mixed-breed dogs can be divided roughly into three types:..." Roughly divided by whom? This screams OR.
 * After saying just the opposite, the article declares: "Overall, mixed breed dogs tend to be healthier. They have more genetic variations than purebred dogs." That needs sourcing.
 * This really is an interesting topic (as a dog lover), but I think this page is a good example of the "semi-OR" that went unnoticed a year or two ago: written with good intent and no desire to deliberately include inaccuracies, but still of the vague, unsourced, "I-sort-of-know-this" type. Hopefully it can be picked up and worked on! Marskell 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Needs inline cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good article, but needs inline citations. Right now, I would question it's FA status on that basis. Badbilltucker 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC. Sandy (Talk) 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria are citations and OR. Joelito (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. This is one of only two featured articles a project I am associated with can point to, so I have very mixed feelings about saying this. But I do believe that the objections raised above are serious enough to merit the article being delisted. Maybe doing so might jolt some editors into working on it. Maybe I might even stop trying to assess articles to do it. Maybe.  Can I get back to you on that one? :) Badbilltucker 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove as per FAR commentary. --RelHistBuff 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm going to check whether this can be referenced/rewritten from the sources I have available, so please leave it on for a couple of days. Yomangani talk 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - now I've had a decent look through. It's uncited, original research, poorly written and US-centric. Needs rewriting from scratch in my opinion. Yomangani talk 11:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - too much uncited OR. Sandy (Talk) 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per Yomangani (nice summary of the article's flaws!).--Yannismarou 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)