Talk:Choking Doberman

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposing a rewrite

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm in the planning stages of a rewrite of this page because it could be better. I'm welcome to advice, suggestions, and input because those things are awesome. Please post them here. I'll update when I have progressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap Chart Mike (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

By all means, have at it. I once looked at improving this page, but once I started to look for sources that weren't basically referenced back to Brunvand's work, I was stymied. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is very much the issue I'm running into. It might just turn into a basic rewrite or die before it gets out of the gate.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rewrite of this page is live

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I dug as deep as I was able to and I think I expanded the scope of the article and improved the referenced material. I was not able to get a direct citation from the supposed original article in the New Times though, so if someone can find that it'd be an improvement and I couldn't find any pics that were on Wikimedia.

Thoughts on it?Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic