Talk:Maine Coon/GA1

GA Review

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

Review of Maine Coon Cat article

I'm not actually ready to make my review just yet, but am rather following the instructions as per setting up the review process. My actual review shall follow shortly.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have subsequently reviewed the article, and I believe it does meet the criteria for a Good Article, and should thus be afforded official Good Article status.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I really appreciate it. However, have you really given the article a thorough review? I'm surprised that you didn't find anything wrong with it; things that we can improve. Well, either way, if the review is completed, you need to go to WP:GAN, take it off the list, and update the status (pass or fail). Instructions on how to do this is at WP:GAN. Thanks again. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 00:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have little doubt the article isn't perfect (and will no doubt continue to be edited), but nothing really jumped out at me as needing to be changed, or otherwise placing it outside the criteria of a Good Article.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's awesome and thank you again for reviewing the article. However, the status still needs to be changed to make the process complete. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Review by Dana boomer

Per a discussion on Ms. Sarita's talk page, I will be undertaking a full GA review of this article, per the "pass" decision given but no action taken by the above reviewer. From what I have seen so far, this is a very nice article, but I have several comments. I understand, from comments made on the talk page of this article, that it is on a track towards FA, so I will be making comments both about what this article needs to do to pass GA and what could be done to improve the article towards FA status. So, here goes! Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Cat shows section, you first say that it was the first North American show, but then you say that the cat was "the first cat to ever win an official award". Was this the first cat to win an official award at a N. American show, or had there really never been a cat show held somewhere else, i.e. Europe? I somehow doubt that... And what defines "official"?

   • I simply removed the information. Honestly, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that sentence. Thanks for catching it. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Same section, you say "the amateur organization became so large that it was forced to shut down." Huh? What about its size made it need to shut down?

   • Again, I simply removed the information. The source implied that the organization became too large and had to be shut down, but didn't delve into the specifics. I felt it better that it be left out. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • My main comment, and the first thing that popped out at me, is the choice of sources. The first part of this is the preponderance of unreliable or iffy sources. The second part is the almost exclusive choice of web references over book references (with the sole outlier being from 1903!). There are four books (as outlined in the further reading section) written exclusively about this breed. There are at least as many books, listed on the talk page and found in a quick Google search, on cat breeds in general. The unreliable references have to be changed, whether to other web references or to book references is up to you. However, you can be almost certain that at FAC the choice of sources will be brought up.

   • When I did the revision of the article, I did not have a chance to keep most of the book sources since I had no way of confirming the information they were supporting. I will try to conduct a Google book search and see if I can't find any use for the results. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Just an update: I worked on the Google book search and could only come up with two books to cite information. Let me know what you think. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • That's the general idea I was thinking of, just on a grander scale - replacing some of the more iffy refs with book refs will help you as you're working your way to FA status. One thought would be to check out your local public and/or university libraries - if they don't have the book on their shelves, there's a good chance that they can get it via inter-library loan. Dana boomer (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Now that that rant is finished, on to the unreliable sources. You are, of course, welcome to attempt to change my mind!

   • Ref 4 (Iams)

   • I will try to locate a difference reference. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • What do you think about Dodo bird's comments at the bottom concerning this source and what it is being used for? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • His explanation works for me. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Ref 6 (Best Cat Art)

   • I agree. I will try to locate a different reference. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I couldn't find another reference, so I removed the entire sentence. However, I will have to look for another source explaining the Captain Coon legend. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • The issue being that now the rest of that paragraph is left without a reference. Was the Best Cat Art ref covering the whole story, or just that piece? Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • It was supporting the entire paragraph but I found another reference to replace it. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Allright, looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Ref 13 (Cat Channel)

   • Cat Channel is the official website of magazines such as Cat Fancy, Cats USA, etc., which I believe are reliable sources of information. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Allright. That works for me. Dana boomer (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Ref 15 (Royal Canin). And what's up with the pet food manufacturers?

   • Royal Canin has a formula of food specifically catered to Maine Coons. This formula accounts for the size of the breed and the requirements for nutrition. However, I'm sure I can find a different source if need be. Let me know. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • It's probably fine. I'll give it to you for now, but know that you may be challenged on it at FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Ref 17 (Verismo Cat)

   • As Marhawkman already pointed out, this reference is the only one that could be found to source Leonetti Reserve Red's entry in the Guinness Book of World Records. I could not find anything else. Perhaps someone can actually confirm and source the information from the book itself? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Since that's the only thing that's being sourced to it, again, it's probably fine. Dana boomer (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Ref 23 (Iams again)

   • If I touch this reference, I know it's going to open a can of worms (see the discussion page). Don't quite know what to do with this one. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Errr, yes. The problem being that this reference only sources the descriptions of the characteristics, not the fact that the Maine Coon has them. Sorry for not being clearer. Dana boomer (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I removed the reference and added a "fact" tag. Since I removed myself from that discussion, hopefully someone will find another suitable reference. If not, I'll just have to do it. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Allright, we'll see what happens... Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • The reference has been implemented back into the article (in two separate locations) by another user. Can you please take a look? Thanks. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I've added my thoughts below yours in the talk page discussion. We'll see what happens. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I've added a fact tag in one spot where I would like to see a reference.

   • Done. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • This article is on the very edge of being failed on the stability criterion alone. So far, participants (some more than others) have not done a good job of taking discussions to the talk page rather than engaging in serial reverts. I assume (perhaps falsely) that this is an article that you all care about and would like to see at GA and perhaps FA status. I would therefore admonish all of you to take all changes that even have the potential to be controversial to the talk page before making any changes to the article itself. Things seem to have settled down in the past week or so, so I am going to give the article a pass for now on this criteria.

   • Honestly, by the time the first review had taken place, the article should have been quick-failed based on this criteria alone. I'm glad it wasn't. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Here's the beginning of the review. I should have the rest of it (mainly prose) in a little while. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   And here's the rest of the review. Overall, this is a well-written article, but there are some problems, mainly with references, that need to be corrected before the article can be GA. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   This isn't all that bad. You had me scared for a second! I will begin tackling this later on this week. Thanks a lot Dana boomer. I really appreciate all your help! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see an issue with ref #17. It's only used as a reference for Leonetti's status as "Longest cat". There used to be a Guiness link, but they seem to have removed the page about Leonetti from their website. Guiness' site isn't a complete listing of everything with a record.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I've interspersed my replies above, along with striking out the issues I feel to be completed. Thanks for the quick response so far, and I look forward to seeing the new references. Dana boomer (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Iams breed article is credited to J. Anne Helgren, who is author of a few cat books including the Barron's Encyclopedia of Cat Breed. Refs for the Guiness record can be found here.--Dodo bird (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies interspersed above. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is that last Iams reference (the one I removed) the only thing that's left? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I think that's all that's left to do before I pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I am going to pass the article. Very nice work! As one other note, I just reverted some changes to sourced information that were made by a registered (although new) user. You may want to check to make sure that I was right in reverting him, and that his edits weren't actually helpful instead of harmful. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)