Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cat/archive1

Cat

Article is still a featured article.

1. Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability

On 20 January Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) notified the user page of reference problems. No editor has responded or corrected the errors. There are 22 citations in the text and 26 footnotes, none of which align correctly. The first text citation is number 3, refers to a statement about Cyprus, and links to a note about spaying. If these were all corrected it would still be slim documentation for a 56k article. For example, the 47 line section about domestication has no citations.

2. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR

The "Feral cats" subsection gives a wholehearted endorsement of feral cat spay and release programs and fails to mention the related controversy. Legal summaries by the University of Florida law school and the Animal Legal and Historical Center conclude that these programs violate state and federal U.S. laws including the Endangered Species Act.[1] [2] At least three decades of peer reviewed research has studied cat predation of endangered species.

My attempt to resolve this informally might taint the nomination to some eyes: I have edited to the article exactly twice. In December I addressed a similar oversight at "Environmental issues." That met resistance. I posted these concerns to the talk page four days ago and received no response. This is a good article but not Wikipedia's best. Durova 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those concerns can be fixed easily, still a FA status article --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aranda56. Suggestion to nominator: try to fix the problems yourself. Mikker ^... 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My good faith efforts to do so are recorded on the article talk page. Durova 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References corrected by me to [3] style. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sod the ickle tweety birds (which is what these supposed 'controversies' with allowing the existence of cats are always about). If you can fly and you get caught by something that can't, you lose at life. :-) Ok, seriously, Durova makes valid points, but I don't think a POV dispute and some technical problems overwhelm the fact that this article is comprehensive, well-written, generally well-referenced, has a good variety of illustrative pictures and is basically an enjoyable read. --Malthusian (talk)