Talk:Akita (dog)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jerushalaim (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC+1) I would like to come back on the decision of merging the two pages "American Akita" and "Akita Inu". In my humble opinion merging the two pages is against the neutrality principle of Wikipedia. All national associations in the world believes American Akita and Akita Inu to be two different breeds. Merging the two pages is like saying: "We root for those three countries which thinks they are the same breed". We wrote a page suggesting the truth of a minority report.

I suggest to create two different pages each one reporting the most agreed standards and including the section about the dispute. In this way we will respect both points of view (the one of those three kennel and the one of all the others) and preserve in the meantime the neutrality of Wikipedia.

Jerushalaim, I can see your point, re neutrality, however I don't think the page was merged for the reason of "we root for the countries who think they are the same breed" I believe the merger was done because most of the information concerning the breeds is exactly the same, such as history, health, and temperament. Previously, when there were separate articles for the Japanese and American Akita the majority of the information was just a rewording of the exact same information from the other, even though there were people working to try to get both articles to GA, it became quite obvious that both articles were becoming essentially the same, just with different pictures and a few minor differences regarding appearance, hence why the merged article was originally created (in a sandbox) and voted upon before being implemented. If someone managed to write two articles, one for each breed (say in a sandbox), and could show that they weren't just a rewording of the same information, there would probably be little argument for splitting the article. If, however, the page gets split because people are concerned about neutrality, I can see that the two pages will go back to their former disgrace whereby neither of them managed to tell the whole story about "the Akita", which would be unfortunate. (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll start on the review for this article this evening. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Miya Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give the article a read through now and add any points below:

  • Lead: First sentence - does that citation need to be there? The lead should be made up of information held elsewhere in the article, so if that fact is cited somewhere else, it can be removed.
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Lead: Both words of Akita Inu can be capitalized.
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Lead: Needs to be expanded to summarize the temperaments, health and working life sections.
Any better? Keetanii (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • American Akita or Akita or Akita Inu?: Linking - the kennel clubs need to be linked the first time they appear, while the (UK) can be removed entirely. Although its normal for the History section to be first, I agree that this section should be in this case - after all it is the first question that is going to be asked.
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Japanese History: Mastiff can be changed to English Mastiff - it's the breed that most people mean by Mastiff.
Ahhh, thankyou, all my sources just say Mastiff and I wasn't at all sure what to do about that disambiguation. Now fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the page could do with being changed from a disambig article to a content split like Cocker Spaniel or Fox Terrier, as the Mastiff is more a dog type than something that can be specifically split up like that. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Japanese History: The Akita Inu link actually links back to his article.
Haha woops, fixedKeetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Japanese History: The single line of the second paragraph would probably be better if it was merged with the third paragraph (to act as the opening sentence).
Yes, now fixed, I think. Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • American History: "he was a Canadian import", does the dog have a name or owner?
The name of the dog,was not mentioned in the text. I have added the name of the owner, only listed as Mrs Jenson in the book.Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Appearance: Needs a cite to say "The Japanese type are a little smaller and lighter."
This was from the information in breed standards, I'll re-word it. Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Appearance: End of the final paragraph needs a citation. Also some of the colours are capitalized randomly. Shiba Inu again links to this article.
Re-worded to say that the information comes from the breed standards. Fixed random capitalisations. Shiba Inu links to this article? Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Temperament: "They are however known to be intolerant of other dogs, as stated in the AKC breed standard." needs a citation. End of second paragraph also needs a citation.
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Health: Is there any way the list can be made to seem more prose-like? Also any information on frequency would be great, but I don't if that is avaliable.
The difficulty with prose in these articles is that we semi-explain the same things over and over in many dog breed articles, to me it seems as bad as explaining in every article that dog breeds are decended form wolves (which isn't done). I'd prefer to leave it as it is, it is far more succint as it is and putting it in prose makes it far more difficult to read and understand. To put into good prose would end up very long and re-stating alot that isn't actually Akita related but related to the diseases, which in most cases, can affect all or many breeds. Many of the dog breed atricles are lacing in respect to not mentioning conditions that do actually affect the breed, the Akita is not as un-healthy a breed as comparison to other dog breed articles might suggest, it is just further researched. I've not found anything on frequency unfortunately. Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be added to explain that research? For instance, who has conducted what health research and when? Just might help to aid understanding. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, scrap that previous thought, it'd drag he article off topic. Only thing is that each condition needs a citation at the end of the sentence to cover the description of the condition as well. Plus there's a couple of them missing full stops at the end too. Miyagawa (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Working life: Cite #61 needs to be moved to after the next punctuation mark.
I've added a comma after the citation for the book by BJ Andrews, I cannot put it at the end since that would be mis-referencing the author.
Ok. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • See also: Anything that is linked elsewhere in the article doesn't need to be linked here.
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • References: Dates all need to be in the same format - some have commas, some don't. Also regarding the book references, anytime it's citing a single page of a book, you need to edit the citebook template to change "pages" to "page", which will change it from displaying "pp" to "p" those those page numbers.
All fixed, I think. Keetanii (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • References: Cite#18 - can just be "The Daily Telegraph".
Are you sure? There are daily telegraph newspapers everywhere. I assume you mean just removing the "London" bit? Keetanii (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, sorry, it's the London bit I meant. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • References: Several cites need to have more fleshed out information in the cite - specifically publisher information.
Fleshed out what I could see, are there any others? Keetanii (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Dr.Sophia Kaluzniacki, DVM, the owner and author of that website has written some wonderful stuff on Akitas. It is unfortunate that she uses her kennel website for some of the other things she has written. She is well respected in the "Akita world" and played an important part in the formal breed split by the FCI, please see [[1]]
That's fine then. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • References: #33 - has been identified as not being a reliable source.
Gone Keetanii (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • References: #35 is a dead link.
Gone and fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Gone Keetanii (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Further reading/External links: Is there a rationale for not including the information in those links in the article?
Removed all breeds health ones. Removed dead links, worked in others Keetanii (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • References: Cite 11 needs an ISBN number for the 1987 reissue - try
Looked, couldn't find, removed. Keetanii (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all I've got for the time being. I'll stick the article on hold so that the issues can be addressed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work so far, I'll give it another read through this evening and see where we are. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Had a re-read and there's a little more work to do on the health section. Ref #18 needs to have the same date format as the others, and that telegraph thing needs to be fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed telegraph thingKeetanii (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed date on Ref#18Keetanii (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed health section extra references problem Keetanii (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There has been an un-sourced addition to the page during the review, in the breed specific conditions section. I have looked for relevant references and found none, I have asked the user to please provide a reference. It would be good if we could give the anonymous user a chance to verify the claim. I realise that the article would not pass the GA with a citation needed, but let's give the user until the conclusion of the GA before deleting the unsourced information? Does that sound okay? Keetanii (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think that covers everything. How are we doing Miya? Keetanii (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Essentially we're good to go as soon as that citation needed tag right at the bottom of the article has a cite.Miyagawa (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Keetanii (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I think we're there now. Miyagawa (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou Miya! Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)