Talk:Dog/Draft

Article Checklist for "Dog/Draft"

Workgroup category or categories	Biology Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Versuri 16:50, 12 April 2007 (CDT), 1 April 2007 (CDT);Larry Sanger 09:35, 21 March 2007 (CDT); luke 00:05, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Approval area Version 1

One editor approval.David Tribe 22:59, 31 March 2007 (CDT) updated URL David Tribe 09:00, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Plan for this article (Dog)

This article is aimed to be a reasonably comprehensive but brief introduction to a single (sub)species. Although the article aims to be biologically correct to the scientist, it is aimed at the general reader who is much more likely to be interested in dogs as pets. That interest is used as something of a lure to bring the reader to other biological and social topics in CZ, but is always satisfied by exploring the most pertinent aspects of (1) why dogs make good pets, (2) proper care of pet dogs (3) important factors in choosing and training a pet dog (breed, etc). The language should always be plain, with special terms clearly explained. When possible, the language should be entertaining rather than dull.

Discussion

1. Changed the first sentence "Dog is a mammal...in the order.... The entire Classification is already there in a box, and this sort of introduction is horribly boring,

What not to feed dogs

Hi Nancy, I like dogs but I don't know much about them. There's all sorts of stuff in the section you deleted that I didn't know. Maybe that's because it's false or uncertain (and you can't know false or uncertain stuff), but surely not all of it is false or uncertain? And remember, 11-year-olds will be reading this article, and it might be news to them that you shouldn't give dogs gum. --Larry Sanger 14:42, 15 December 2006 (CST)

We can address this! Nancy Sculerati MD 07:41, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I started in on the "gum" issue and here's the problem. No, you shouldn't give dogs gum, sure enough. You also shouldn't give them: erasers, lipstick, mouthwash, hard candies, caramels, charcoal, marshmallows, mortar, and a list of household items that goes on and on. All of these things are things dogs will likely accept, of course, especially if lovingly offered by their buddy, the 11 year old kid. But- If we put in "gum", but we leave out something else that seems equally appropriate to the person who has to be explictly told not to give gum, we are almost implying that it's only gum you really have to worry about. Further, if we mention gum as a no=no for dogs, what about cats? Parrots? Rabbits? Gerbils? I guess there are those people, the sort of person who lacks common sense understanding, who might assume that if a "food" like gum is specifically mentioned as forbidden for dog, but left it off the list for cats, then it must be ok for cats. Right? So, no I prefer to use general guidelines fo feeding (that are not finished yet). :) Nancy Sculerati MD

Layout issue-need picture, please help

The juxtaposition of the Classification info box and the Content Outline box leaves a big gap in the page. This is generally true for all articles containing both. Not having the capability to come up with a better layout (hint to somebody who does) I would like a large picture of dogs in all kinds of activities that nicely balances in that space. A collage would do, as would a large picture that has a lot going on (dog show- field trials- etc.) Please help you visual arts/photo mavens!! Nancy Sculerati MD 07:46, 16 December 2006 (CST)

The gap between the Contents menu and the infobox is often a problem. The main problem is how big is the gap? The higher your screen resolution and the bigger your monitor, the bigger the gap. On my laptop, there's not such a big gap. You have to be careful what you put in this place. If you put in a image that fills all of your screen, it might break the layout in my screen.

It is possible to let the article text fill this space. This simply requires adding a tag in the page markup that floats the content menu to the left or the right (why you would float right I don't know). The text will then fill the center area. Look up the WP help pages will tell you how (I don't have WP access form here - China) The advantage of filling with text rather than an image is that the text will automatically wrap it's self to fill the space perfectly, no matter what size that space is. Derek Harkness 05:16, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Do you think at the very end of the article we could have an alphabetical list of all the kinds of dogs? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:01, 4 February 2007 (CST)

There is another article - Dog breed, that I think such a list might be helpful. Nancy Sculerati MD 15:31, 4 February 2007 (CST) Or maybe there should be a separate "LIst of Dog Breeds" that both could link to? What do you think? Nancy Sculerati MD 15:32, 4 February 2007 (CST)

removed on article cleanup

{{StatusDomesticated}}

need image

image_caption = '''[[Pair of very different dogs ex.Gr.Dane and Chiuaua]]'''<br>two breeds of the domestic dog

Add section on recent food poisonings?

Perhaps someone, who is on top of the current and puzzling pet food poisonings involving Menu Foods, should add a section on this on-going tragey as well as last year's horrible tragedy involving aflatoxin-contaminated products sold by Diamond Pet Food company. (A fellow member of the Iroquois Labrador Retriever Club in Western New York lost five of her Labs to liver failure after eating the contaminated food. The pain of such a loss is impossible to describe.) Andrew A. Skolnick 11:12, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Approval

I've cleaned up the empty refs. As far as I'm concerned this could be approved. David Tribe 22:49, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Fixed some wording in Registered Purebred Breeds

I rewrote part of the Registered purebred breeds section, but it needs a bit more work because I think it still is a little misleading. I think it is confusing requirements for winning confirmation shows with requirements for registering a purebred dog. Club-established standards (such as nose color) are guidelines for breeders in chosing the best dogs to breed and for judges to pick winners in club-sanctioned confirmation shows, but not much else. They are not standards for registering a pure bred dog. The only requirement for registration a purebred is proof that the parent dogs are the same breed and both have "full registration" with the club. For purebred registration, puppies do not have to meet any physical standards at all. (How could they since they're only weeks old and don't look at all like the dogs they will become?). The only requirement is that both parents be the same breed and fully registered. (Purebred dogs considered less than suitable for breeding are usually given "limited registration" - which recognizes them as purebreds, but won't allow them to compete in confirmation shows nor allow any puppies they produce to be registered. That's what I purchased when I got my Labrador from his breeder, who wanted control over her Labrador lines. But when my pup was 4 months old and showed great promise for the show ring, the breeder had AKC change his registation. So Arg is now winning first place ribbons [no points yet, sigh] and may someday sire some real great dogs.)

Another confusing point is that purebred dogs don't have to meet the established confirmation standard to compete in other kinds of club-registered events, such as agility, obedience, rally-o, hunting, tracking, etc. Bulldogs having a pink nose only disqualifies them from winning in confirmation shows, not in obedience or rally. Castrated and spayed registered dogs cannot compete in the confrimation ring but they are welcome in most other kinds of club-sanctioned competitions. Andrew A. Skolnick 15:37, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Andrew, your criticism is correct and appreciated. Can you think of a way to change the wording so that the subject is explained more accurately? You are welcome to edit it yourself on the article, or paste the sentences you think have to be redone here on the talk page and we can work on it together. Nancy Sculerati 15:48, 1 April 2007 (CDT) P.S. We need a whole article on the AKC, and it will be linked here and can and should have entire sections on each kind of show, hopefully we will have other kennel clubs as well. Nancy

The Opening

..and what a nice place to make my first CZ article edit! - anyhooo... i would probably seek to improve the opening couple of sentences - the opening doesn't settle the reader as best it could in my opinion, and i would take issue with '... dogs are found associated with humans,..' - perhaps 'found to be associated'?

That's really just a little input, I may make some small changes in the next few days or so if there are no objections - or perhaps I'll submit a reworded opening here...

best, Peter Godbolt 22:33, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Approval checklist

Hello everyone, I see this article has passed the approval date. It is not clear to me who the editors are that are involved. Can you spell it out for me here? --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:49, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I am the single editor. I have no authorial involvement. But you'd better check whether the rules still say one editor. David Tribe 09:03, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Why is the history date only showing from April 1, 2007? --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:04, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I am the single editor. I have no authorial involvement. But you'd better check whether the rules still say one editor. Nancy is an author David Tribe 09:03, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Were there other editors before April 1 that are not showing in the history? --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:07, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Thats a bit weird. Might be a result of graffiti cleanup after vandals. I dont know for sure. Ive personally seen the article for months. David Tribe 09:08, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I see it. You have a lot of edits, too. We might need another editor. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:10, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

My memory says no other editors but other authors not now in the logs David Tribe

I can understand that edits appear with my name, but they are me checking what Nancy has done as an author - giving her criticism. Its called being an editor. If that an impediment its a great pity, but there you are. David Tribe 09:13, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I just checked the diffs on one set. They are a spell check. Nancys spelling is flaky like mine and she hasnt got a spell checker. Its me being an editor. David Tribe 09:19, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Lets see what we have. These are the changes you made: [1], [2], [3]' [4]. Give me a minute to look att them. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:20, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

QUOTE An editor decides that an article is ready to approve, or nearly so. If the editor has worked on it herself, she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it

I dont see I am a significant contributurer if I act whem called in by Nancy to decide on approval and nominate the flaws by changing them as simple edits. But youve gotta decide if I m calling it right David Tribe 09:28, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Agree. So far you first group of edits look to be minor [5]. Let me keep analyzing your data. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:34, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

This set, you just added references. [6]. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:36, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

These were copy edits related to links and format. [7]. So far so good. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:37, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

These were minor copy edits as well. [8].]

As there appears to be no major content changes made by User:David Tribe, this qualifies as an individual editor approval under the Approval Process for individual editor approval.

• Individual approval. Editors working individually may approve articles if they have not contributed significantly to the article. In this way, there is a kind of peer review. No single editor may approve an article to which that editor has contributed significantly. In other words, no editor may approve her own work singlehandedly.

I will begin the Approval mechanics. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:42, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Approval Complete, Congratulations! Good job everyone. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:53, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

wikipedia content

Hi all, it was brought to my attention that there is material from WP in the article. I compared the two articles and there are some significant similarities so I added the WP credit on the article. Further discussions may allow us to change this, but better safe than sorry for now. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Copyedit

A caption of a picture in the main page should be fixed. See this. Thanks. Versuri 18:32, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Image captions

Are these image captions for real? I feel insulted — they look like something out of a children's book. James Hare 23:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Problem

File:Antibabypille.jpg.jpg

Puppies are rarely born alone

There is a discrepancy between the draft and the approved versions due to this edit in the protected approved version and the image titled Antibabypille does not exist. Any updates to the approved version should probably be made to the draft version too. Are these changes even allowed to go through without a 'toapprove' template? Also the image name should not be "Image:Antibabypille.jpg.jpg" but "Image:Antibabypille.jpg", I assume. Chris Day (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

I just copied the code to use for a different article and I made a mistake and saved the wrong one, it was a mistake. I tried to fix it-did I? If not, can you? Nancy Sculerati 17:15, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

I just realised when i saw the picture you uploaded. I cannot fix the mistake, the page is protected. You can revert back to the original though. Chris Day (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Hopefully, I did. Nancy Sculerati 17:29, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Unfitting introduction

The first sentence of the introduction is fine, however the remainder of the introductory paragraph misleads the reader about the scope and content of the article. Either the introduction needs a complete rewrite or, more productively, the balance and scope of the article needs to be massively expanded to fit with the introduction.

The "man's best friend" moniker suggests an amicable relationship among individuals. The phrase really implies that the two species have a strong relationship throughout history, but does not address the nature of the relationship. Upon reading this sentence I thought that the article would address only the Western, domestic relationship with dogs. Then I read "throughout the world today..." Alright, I thought, I was wrong to assume that the article would be narrow and biased. The last sentence tells me that aside from accompaniment dogs also do work and are eaten. I excitedly read on hoping to find something other than Western kennel clubs, breed specifications, and shows as I'm not particularly interested in those topics.

What I found in the article was very disappointing. Roughly half of the article by page length is devoted to these topics, much more if judged by word count. For all the worldliness of the introduction, there is only one mention of the existence of dogs outside of the United States and Europe. That is two sentence mention of the Shar pei in the context of whether or not it, as a natural breed, has been registered by a kennel club. Furthermore, half of this is simply a quote from a secondary or tertiary source.

The introduction also leads one to believe there will be discussion of what dogs do apart from snuggle and jump throw hoops (both literally and figuratively) to please people at shows. Under the Domestic life section there are three short simple sentences mentioning real-world activities of dogs other than companionship. Under the Registered purebreeds section there are two sentences mentioning breeding dogs for work or hunting, although appropriately for their placement in the article it is in the context of breeding practices and not the actual work of the dogs. Under the Behavior, temperament, and skills section it is noted that Newfoundland Dogs are good swimmers who can, with training, rescue drowning people, but that is the full extant of the detail. The training section below which I expected would mention what dogs were trained to do, if not also how, is just three sentences long and addresses neither of these points other than saying "obedience and other disciplines."

After reaching the end of the article I found no further reference to the introduction's mention of dogs used as food, which the introduction implies through syntax to be as important as working and companionship. I had read about a handful of different jobs that dogs could do, but other than through three of the famous dogs mentioned at the bottom had read nothing of what the life and day-to-day operations of a "full-time worker" dog would be. I realize that working dog is linked to in the article, but if that is the justification for not including more information then half of this article should be cut and moved to show dog.

The lack of information about when, where and how dogs were domesticated, other than a long time ago from wolves near humans, is painfully obvious to me as this is the very first thing mentioned in the introduction. It deserves to have a section devoted to it, not just a cursory discussion in the context of crossbreeding with wolves which are not in the least bit the same as the ancestral wolves that gave rise to the modern domestic dog.

In summary, the introduction appended to the current approved and current draft articles does not well correlate with or introduce the article below it. I am finishing up final exams and am unable to do anything about these problems at the moment but will try to get back to it in the near future.Connor Lee 16:01, 19 May 2007 (CDT)