Talk:Dog/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a review was accidentally started by somebody else -- hopefully I can take it up without breaking anything. I would like to go through the article one part of a time, adding points as I go. My emphasis will be on whether the article is comprehensive, accurate, and understandable. I'll start with the lede:

Since familiaris and dingo are mentioned right at the top, I think the article ought to contain a brief explanation of why these two subspecies are recognized and why nothing else is a "dog". This shouldn't go into the lede, but it should be in the article somewhere. In the current version, there is no information at all about dingos.

Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves at least twice. Briefly say when, please.

I changed this sentence to say Dogs were domesticated 15,000 to 40,000 years ago. Coaster1983 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People keep wild captured animals as pets all the time. The WP:WEIGHT of evidence says that domestication (which uses artifical selection) occurred 15,000 ypb. Discussion of minority views on the first captured wolf pups must be left out of the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bering strait/sled dogs. This is weasel-worded and looks like pure speculation. Unless there is some actual archaeological evidence that the people who crossed the strait 15,000 years ago used sled dogs, I don't feel that this belongs in the lede. The mention later in the article is okay, I think.

Through I have a soft spot for sled dogs, I agree that sentence should not be in the lede. I have removed it. Coaster1983 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

landraces. This term is not used anywhere in the article except the lede. Either the sentence needs to be removed or an explanation needs to be added to the article of what the landraces of dogs are.

As the modern understanding of genetics developed, humans began to intentionally breed dogs for a wide range of specific traits. Humans were methodically breeding dogs long before any understanding of genetics developed.

I think this sentence is very poorly trying to state that as dog breeding practices developed over time, more breeds developed as humans selected dogs for specific traits. I've cut it. Coaster1983 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lede ought to mention that dogs, and the wolves they evolved from, are highly social species, and that the domestication process involved getting them to transfer their social interactions to humans. It might also be worth mentioning here that dogs are better at understanding human nonverbal communications that any known species of primates.

I may as I go on suggest adding something or other to the lede, but those are the main points I see at present. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review on either side? No comments in nearly a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the article is far from a GA. Abductive (reasoning) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the article needs a full review and a quick fail. Perhaps a note to Looie could get that wrapped up? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that most of the basic points concerning the lead remain unaddressed, I'm not going to spend the time to give this a full review. I was dubious about whether the article should have been nominated in the first place -- it was a drive-by nom without talk page discussion. At this point I am simply going to fail it -- it can always be renominated as soon as somebody thinks that is appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]