Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Australian Cattle Dog/archive1

Completed issues from Quadell

• I think the sentence that makes up the 3rd paragraph in the lede is overlong and confusing, and should be rewritten. (done)

• Why is only one claim in the lede sourced? I don't believe any statements in the lede need sourcing, but it's odd to have just one footnote there. (done)

• Can you provide page numbers for the printed references?
  • It concerns me that for much of the article, not only can I not check to see if the material really is in the source, I'm not sure you (the nominator) can check either. There are 85 footnote references, and 40 of them--nearly half--are sourced to entire offline books, with no information as to where to find the information within. Do you have access to these books? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I own all of the books and I can get the page numbers. I just don't know how to give the page numbers in any accepted referencing style. The "reference pages" template gives the page number as superscript in the text, which is very odd to me. And the "shortened footnote" template would treble the length of an already long reference section. Marj (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Of the 41 references, 16 are books, 8 of which had page numbers given. I have added page numbers where all of the citations are from a particular section of the books. There are now 3 2 books with multiple cites where I have not given page numbers (Holmes, Clark, and Beauchamp. Marj (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added material from some of the books that were in the additional reading section, that I deleted in response to your comment.Marj (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements. This satisfies my issues with paging and sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• How do you choose which ACD-related books are important enough to go in the "Additional reading" section, and which are not? Should this section list any and all books on the topic, or only ones independently noted as important, or none at all? If they are useful, why aren't they used as references for this article? (Actually, some are... books should certainly not be listed both here and in the references.) (done)

I'll provide more feedback if these are resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortened and divided into two.

It was possibly "new" information for many who accepted the mythology. Removed to body.

They have been provided where I could.

It was a list of all full books on the ACD. Removed. Marj (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding which of my comments your replies are replying to. What is possibly "new"? What was divided in two? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My first response is a reply to your first comment. My second response is a reply to your second comment. I was told not to add anything before the reviewer's signature. I don't know how else I should reply to un-numbered points. Advice appreciated. Marj (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything is fine, so long as we both understand it. But I prefer responses that are directly under the bullet points themselves. (Since this whole section is called "Comments from Quadell", I don't think it's ambiguous who wrote the bullet points. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• This article has over 30,000 characters of text (not including the lede or end sections. According to the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede for an article of this length should be three or four paragraphs. This lede has three paragraphs, and the first one is very short. I think it should be expanded a bit, perhaps including more information on history. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK It was sufficiently long before the FA review process, but material has been removed following the suggestions of reviewers. Marj (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added fourth paragraph, on the early development of the breed. Marj (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done; this is a good lede. (done) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have made a few changes which I think add to the clarity. Feel free to revert if you disagree. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks I agree. Marj (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "followed in 1980 by Aust Ch Landmaster Darling Red in whelp", is "Aust Ch" an abbreviation? If so, I think it would be better spelled out. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the title, titles are not given for other dogs. Marj (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Completed issues from Sasata

• "Robert Kaleski who wrote the first standard for the breed." Mant readers will not know what a "standard" is, could you rephrase for non-dog people, or link?

OK

• suggested lead links: stud, hereditary, assistance dog

OK

• "has a good deal of energy" sounds colloquial

OK

• "and working as assistance dogs." and->to

Disagree. The continuum is from herding, to sport and assistance dogs.

Maybe I just misunderstood the sentence: "Australian Cattle Dogs participate in a range of activities from herding competitions, to competing with their owners in sporting events and working as assistance dogs." Does the first clause of the sentence means that the dog participates in many activities that are part of herding competitions? Is the continuum not from herding, to sport, to assistance dogs? If not, why are sport and assistance activities lumped together? Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Herding is what they were bred for. "Australian Cattle Dogs now participate in a greater range of activities than the herding they were bred to do, including competing with their owners in sporting events and working as assistance dogs." Marj (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten as "Australian Cattle Dogs now participate in a range of activities beyond the herding they were bred to do, including competing with their owners in sporting events and working as assistance dogs" Marj (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "includes black hairs in a red-coated dog, including the extreme" repetition of include/including

‘includes’ is singular with a plural subject, changed to are.

• "The tail should feature a reasonable level of brush." doggie jargon? I'm not even sure whether "brush" is being used as a verb or a noun here

Not sure if dogs have their own jargon, the wording is from the standard. “Brush tailed” is an accepted descriptor : Brush-tailed Bettong, Brush-tailed Possum, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby ... etc. The tail should be fluffy? The tail should be feathery? The tail should be downy?

Looking at a dictionary, I see one of the definitions of brush is "The bushy tail of a fox", is what this refers to? Do they define what a "reasonable level" means? How about "The tail should not be excessively bushy."? Ah, never mind, who am I to argue with a breed standard? Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see what a conformation judge considered an "unreasonable level of brush" :-) Marj (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "with a naturally "bobbed" tail." single quotes are used previously to highlight words, so this is inconsistent here

OK

• "The Australian Cattle Dog should not be confused" "should not" is not encyclopaedic wording

So "should" is OK but "should not" isn’t? Changed to: "The Australian Cattle Dog is not to be confused with ..." Changed again to "The Australian Cattle Dog is a different breed from "

• "Where the Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog has a natural tail, it is long and thin" I'm thinking "Where" should be replaced with "When"

I prefer where. Re-wrote to avoid both. "It occasionally has a natural long thin tail, but most are born without tails."

• "The bond that this breed can create with its owner is very strong and will leave the dog feeling very protective towards the owner; typically resulting in the dog's never being too far from the owner's side." I think that the semicolon should be a comma

OK

• "however research shows -> I suggest "however, research has shown" I noticed several times throughout the article that the adverbial "however" wasn't followed by a comma (it should be)

OK

• "in a multi-dog situation" surely there must be a more elegant way to say this

Happy to receive suggestions.

How about "however, when multiple dogs are present, establishing a pecking order can trigger aggression." Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "…requires little in the way of grooming…" colloquial

Requires little grooming

• "It is not a year round shedder but blows its coat once a year (twice in the case of intact females)" year round needs a hyphen; "blows its coat" have never heard this phrase before, is it standard?; what's an "intact" female?

A quick Google show that blowing coat is the widely used term. I don’t know of an alternative. Shedding refers to the ongoing loss of small amounts of hair – not dumping an undercoat over a day or two. Similarly Google reveals that ‘intact female’ is a widely used term. The Wikipedia article on neutering uses the term without explanation.

I see it's been linked now, good enough. Had not heard of "intact" used in this way before (learn something new every day). Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "not need more than a wipe down" colloquial

What is the non-colloquial form of “a wipe down with a moist cloth”? “... the removal of dirt by the use of one or more rubbing strokes with a cloth that has been soaked in water and squeezed dry”? I've re-written it as "needs no more than wiping down with a moist cloth" though that sounds odd to me.

Sorry, I should have said "idiomatic" rather than "colloquial". Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "So training involves helping the dog" can't shake the feeling that starting a sentence with "So" is not good prose

It’s perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with ‘so’. It acts as a summing up transition.

Fair enough (I see it's been removed though). Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The Australian Cattle Dog is biddable" maybe it's just an English variant thing (and ignore this comment if so), but I've never heard the work "biddable" before

With an estimated 228,000 words in the English language there are many that I have never come across, but biddable is a perfectly acceptable word, particularly in reference to dogs where it is more accurate than obedient. Googling ‘biddable dogs’ shows it is in common usage.

Ok, I learned another word :) (are there really that few words in English? Wonder what the filler from Wiktionary is from then ...) Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Things I type with my little finger don't always record - there's a missing '1'Marj (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "the Australian Cattle Dog is very intelligent" "very" is often a useless modifier (check usage throughout article). While you're at it, check for usage of "also"; there's at least a couple of places that it could be removed without sacrificing meaning.

OK

• "Like other working breeds the Australian Cattle Dog is very intelligent and devoted to its owner, both of these traits can be an advantage in training where a structured, varied program is used" I think that either the comma needs to be changed to a semicolon, or an "and" needs to be inserted

OK

• "spot-on obedience" ?

Deleted

• "enhancing their performance in breed or obedience competition or making their dogs more biddable pets." missing serial comma?

OK

• "…but the breed's problem-solving ability may lead it to find solutions to problems that are not necessarily rewarded by the obedience judges. Cattle Dogs have reportedly left the ring to share a spectator's hot dog, or retrieve a bag of doughnuts." It's unclear to me how the latter two actions are evidence of problem-solving ability (unless the problem was that it was hungry, in which case I think any dog would have these same "qualities")

I didn’t read a “for example” or any other clue that the actions were presented as evidence of problem solving. Though it might support the previous sentence “many handlers find training an ACD to be challenging.” Deleted.

• "The Cattle Dog is an adaptable dog that can live well under city or indoor conditions" seems odd to describe city or indoors as a "condition"

‘Living conditions’ is a widely used term.

• "In a very small sample of 11 deceased dogs" again very isn't necessary, n is given so the reader can assess for themselves how small the sample is

OK

• link therapy dog, drug detection, rods, cones, spondylosis, pyometra, false pregnancy, cruciate ligament tear

OK

• "Hip dysplasia is not common in the breed,[13] although it occurs sufficiently often for many breeders to test their breeding stock." test them how?

However they and their vet want to. The dog can walk around while the vet observes their gait for hip swivel or abnormal action. Computed tomography (CT scan), or ultrasonography can be used. Or there are a number of different types of X-ray positioning and interpretation that can be used, primarily the hip-extended ventrodorsal view x-ray recommended by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), and the PennHIP radiography technique, often used with younger dogs. Are you saying that this information should be included in this paragraph?

Nah, just wondering how it was done. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "A study of dogs presenting at Veterinary Colleges …" "presenting at" sounds odd to me

Presenting is an intransitive verb meaning to exhibit a particular symptom or symptoms on examination. People ‘present’ at emergency departments and doctors’ surgeries, sick dogs ‘present’ at vet clinics.

It was changed to diagnosed, I think that's better. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Hereditary Polioencephalomyelopathy" is the second word supposed to be capitalized?

OK

• "The first symptoms are seizures followed by increasing paralysis with dogs identified with the condition completely paralysed within their first year." sentence construction is a bit awkward

OK

• "A droving dog was desperately needed but the colonial working dogs are understood to have been of Old English Sheepdog type (commonly referred to as Smithfields, descendants of these dogs still exist)"

?

I forget what I was going to say here, but it's been changed and looks fine now. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Kaleski's Standard was taken up by breed clubs …" is standard really capitalized here?

OK

• "His writings from the 1910s give an important insight into the early history of the breed." is using "important" NPOV?

I would think so. Kaleski’s critical contribution to the development and promotion of the breed is not disputed.

• much of the Australian history section is sourced to a 2003 book by Clark. World cat shows me that's it's 192 pages; the citations need to be more specific to help readers who want to verify the assertions.

I have been asking for help in citing multiple pages from a single source, thank you for giving me an example. Specific page numbers for each reference, including Clark, now given.

Looks good, thanks for adding those in. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "In recent years information technology that enables the manipulation of large databases, and advances in the understanding of canine genetics has allowed a clearer understanding of the development of the breed." I don't quite follow how database manipulation wold lead to a better understanding of breed genetics.

There is no suggestion that database manipulation has led to an understanding of canine genetics. However the ability to analyze digital databases of historical records with software such as Nud*ist and Nvivo or even an Excel spreadsheet has made it a lot easier to pull together bits and pieces of information from a range of sources. When you combine more thorough analysis of historical records with a clearer understanding of canine genetics, then you get a better understanding of the development of the breed.

I tweaked the prose to make it flow better to me... see if you agree. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "In the 1940s Dr. Alan McNiven" MoS says to avoid using academic titles

OK Though I doubt McNiven had a PhD, it would have been a courtesy title, not an academic one.

• "McNiven responded by putting “dead papers” on his pups" not sure what this means

Dead papers are fraudulently provided registration documents. The papers from a dog that has died are assigned to a new puppy. Rewritten

• "… expelled from the RASKC" shouldn't use an abbreviation like this if it hasn't been defined previously

Royal Agricultural Society Kennel Club is spelled out in full in the previous sentence. Is further definition necessary?

No but the abbreviation should appear immediately after first usage, which it is now. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• link Napa, California

OK