Jump to content

Talk:Dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
May 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 25, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed

skeletal variation

[edit]

"All healthy dogs, regardless of their size and type, have an identical skeletal structure…, although there is significant skeletal variation between dogs of different types." isn't this a direct contradiction? Miiyooh (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that variations in tail bone count and the baculum in male dogs mean that they are, in fact, not identical. Better wording would be something like “Dogs’ skeletons generally are morphologically similar regardless of size or breed, though notable variation in bone structure and arrangement, tail bone count, and (in male dogs only) the baculum means significant variation exists.” Or something like that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't find that contradictory. The structure is the same, for instance in the foreleg, where there will always be radius and ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges. Within that universal pattern, there can be wide variation in factors like length and thickness, etc. Compare whippets, afghan hounds, bulldogs, and corgis. Dgndenver (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the types of bones are the same they just vary in size. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DHWANI ASHISH PATEL (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rajandeep Kaur Dhaliwal, Rajatrana1.

— Assignment last updated by Rajatrana1 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Extinct Gray Wolf

[edit]

Rework sentence or change extinct to Pleistocene. Gray wolves are not extinct 97.126.89.248 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It once read "an extinct population of gray wolves", which is accurate because these were genetically distinct, however with the passage of time and people making uninformed changes to the lede of the article, this has now become lost. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though people nearly hunted wolves to extinction in the lower 48 states, northern gray wolves have returned to the Great Lakes, the northern Rockies, California and the Pacific Northwest. But just as the U.S. was making progress for gray wolves, protections were stripped. Credits: Defenders of Wildlife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.254.72 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing

[edit]

I took an initial swing at copy editing the article, but it needs a LOT of work. I started removing the excessive use of semicolons, adding commas in some areas and breaking others into separate sentences. Much of the article, especially in the behavior section, needs more copy work done. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link for "welfare-purpose dogs" goes to an article about warfare, rather than welfare... whether the leaking abstractions are from "broken telephone" or "AI hallucinations", the failure to lead towards peaceful employment of canine friends is slightly distressing. 80.230.56.154 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to service dogs, which is what I presume the term refers to. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog saliva

[edit]

Dogs are a significant reservoir and source of zoonotic pathogens and infections from contact with dog saliva can result in serious infections, even necessitating amputations of legs and arms. See The Shocking reason that this man's legs had to be amputated: dog saliva and A Woman Needed Her Hands and Legs Amputated After Contracting Infection from Dog 'Kisses'. The general public is largely ignorant of this serious health issue so this article on dogs should mention that fact. I could add a note to this effect under the 'Health" section (since dogs spread diseases to each other through saliva as well as to humans) but perhaps it merits adding a new section on 'Dog Saliva'. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dewclaw section needs copyediting.

[edit]

Many grammatical errors. As written: “ A dog's dewclaw is the five digits in the dog's forelimb and hind legs. Dogs' forelimbs' dewclaws are attached by bone and ligament, while the dogs' hind legs' are attached by skin to the limb.”

Probably should read “Dewclaws are a dog’s fifth digits. Dewclaws on the forelimbs are attached by bone and ligament, while the dewclaws on the hind legs are attached only by skin.”

Some technical errors, however. Dewclaws are the first digits - not the fifth - in standard comparative anatomy notation. Even better would be: “Dewclaws are digits, corresponding to thumbs and big toes in humans, (though not functionally so). They are located above the other four toes, on the inside (medial) side of the limb. Dewclaws on the forelimbs are attached by bone and ligament, while the dewclaws on the hind legs are attached only by skin.” 2601:206:8586:7990:ACDA:A385:FF91:3C22 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KayMyrs (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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


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)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your edit was totally uncalled for. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 20:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging unsourced content that appears to be sourced due to later citations is uncalled for? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the freaking proof. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What about the other sentences you tagged? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Trust is earned not given away to anyone. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great! Wolverine XI (talk to me) 02:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Irruptive Creditor: You there buddy? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've had to work on some stuff IRL, but I am doing well. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Health conditions

[edit]

Currently the disorders listed are selected by users based on preference/belief rather than based on any authoritative source. I personally don't think elbow dysplasia is very common or notable for example. I do have a tertiary source: [1] although it has so many conditions listed it might be exhaustive/too much. Other options would be one of these studies: [7] [8] [9] although these tend to ignore notable conditions such as gastric dilatation volvulus Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Gear, Robyn (2020). "Medical disorders of dogs and cats and their nursing". In Cooper, Barabara; Mullineaux, Elizabeth; Turner, Lynn (eds.). BSAVA Textbook of Veterinary Nursing. British Small Animal Veterinary Association. pp. 532–595.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog&oldid=1247080444"