Talk:Dog/GA4

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This will probably the longest and most extensive GA-nominee I will have the pleasure of reviewing, so this may take some time. However, I will work to see it through. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I tagged unsourced and poorly sourced parts of the health section. I may be able to source them myself. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was totally uncalled for. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Tagging unsourced content that appears to be sourced due to later citations is uncalled for? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the freaking proof. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph 'Some breeds of dogs are prone to specific genetic ailments such as elbow and hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, pulmonic stenosis, a cleft palate, and trick knees. Two severe medical conditions significantly affecting dogs are pyometra, affecting unspayed females of all breeds and ages, and gastric dilatation volvulus (bloat), which affects larger breeds or deep-chested dogs. Both of these are acute conditions and can kill rapidly. Dogs are also susceptible to parasites such as fleas, ticks, mites, hookworms, tapeworms, roundworms, and heartworms that can live in their hearts' is sourced to this: [1] The only thing this source can verify is the bolded part. The reference clearly does not support the rest of that content hence why I tagged it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What about the other sentences you tagged? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm meant to spend my time proving that for every tag instead of you just verifying it for yourself if you don't believe me? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Man, it's late here; I'm too tired to verify these sources. I can't check them tomorrow morning either, since I have to head to work early. And I'll be very busy with paperwork by the time I arrive home, so I think it's best you stop talking and start proving. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

But if you wish to fix the "perceived" sourcing issues, you may. I'm not stopping you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh great scare quotes. You're acting like you own this article and that I am required to satisfy you. Wikipedia is collaborative and that means trusting editors unless you have good reason to doubt them. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Trust is earned not given away to anyone. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

In a collaborative project like this, one generally starts with at least some confidence that other participants are acting in good faith. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done with the sourcing issues, and apologies to Traumnovelle for my less than collaborative behavior. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Where does this study: [2] say that certain breeds are predisposed to hip dysplasia? It just states ' CHD is a disease that can affect all breed types, with a higher frequency occurring in purebred canines, and does not discriminate against a specific breed size.' it doesn't support the statement. This study: [3] doesn't mention cleft palate, stenosis, blindness, deafness, nor luxating patellas. The reference is also used for a claim about pyometra. The study just mentions pyometra twice in a graph and GDV isn't mentioned at all. Pyometra is mentioned in this study: [4] but it doesn't establish it as occurring at any age (because it is related to the oestrous cycle). [5] states GDV mainly and commonly affects deep chested and large breeds, not exclusively. [6] this study has nothing to do with over-population. I tagged the ASPCA claim because there needs to be a secondary source

Also Dogtime is not an RS, I have no idea why you added it there was no need for an extra ref there. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you fix them yourself? The sources I added support the claims made in that section. I will not respond further. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They certainly don't. I've fixed some claims myself and have been looking through text books for one that provides a list/overview of notable/common conditions, although haven't come across such yet. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

While I kindly appreciate your input, @Traumnovelle, you and @Wolverine XI appear to be in some sort of a spat that’d probably best addressed on the main talk page for the Dog article, not its GA review. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I will nonetheless keep a close eye on any relevant new developments arising therefrom such discourse. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Great! Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Irruptive Creditor: You there buddy? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I've had to work on some stuff IRL, but I am doing well. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. Source check:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   This is the first one I have had time to review thus far. Overall, I see no indication of edit warring.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Checked IP status of all images used.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Roughly, I would say so. Placement is alright and captions are not outlandish. Although, the descriptions of dog molars and of phenotypes and morphological distinctions could be 'dumbed down' somewhat for a lay audience.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: