Talk:Tahitian Dog/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some interesting articles you've been working on, having nominated the extinct Tahiti rail myself some time ago, I think I'll take this one... FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Per other promoted articles about breeds (for example Giant Schnauzer and Sable Island horse), I'd expect to see a "characteristics" or "description" section seperate from the history section, that deals with how the breed looked, behaved, etc. Could be done to your other nomination too, as it will have to be done eventually anyway.

Created a characteristic section.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• The intro seems too short, as it should summarise the entire article, which it does not seem to do at the moment.

Expanded.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the various scientific names should be a stand-alone list with no context, it would be better to incorporate the names into the history section, and explain why they were treated as species and by who.

The sources do not expand upon these descriptions and only list them, so I have no idea what to do with them either. Possibly just remove? This is an extinct species that hasn't been written much about since the 19th century, so modern sources are lacking or brief in its mentioning since the most focus is on the kuri and the Hawaiian Poi Dog.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you could just say something in the history section like "this breed was sometimes considered a distinct species by 18th century naturalists/scientists, and received scientific names such as (insert a bunch of names and their authorities)". See for example the taxonomy section I wrote at Columbian mammoth, where various synonyms are just mentioned to give an idea of how many there were. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Western encounters" seems a bit iffy to me as a title, what does the sources say? Why not "European encounters"? Considering Cook and others came to Tahiti from the East, I'm not sure if Tahiti is considered "Eastern" itself...

Changed to European.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• You there, KAVEBEAR? I'll review the rest when the above structural issues are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• If the hairs in the breastplate photo are form another dog breed elsewhere, it should be note din the caption.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Margaret Titcomb" Present her. Is she a historian?

• Historian added.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "kept their longer hair dogs" Longer haired?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "were described as being of small or medium build, lazy, not ferocious, had notoriously bad disposition, were unable to bark but being able to howl." Seems grammatically incongruent.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Still something wrong: "but were possessed notoriously bad disposition". FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Often they are lumped together with the Hawaiian Poi Dog" By who?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "British naturalist Georg Forster" I'm pretty sure he was German.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "were unable to bark but being able to howl" The Forster quote says seldom, so are we sure they were unable to bark?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "pariah dog" This term is only mentioned in the intro, which should have no unique info. It could be mentioned and explained in the article body.

• It's a pretty ubiquitous term, synonym for stray/free wondering. The sources I am using don't even bother to explain the term when they use it along with cur or barbet. And I can't find a reliable source that replicate what the Wikipedia entries say either (i.e. "pariah dog refers to free-ranging dogs that occupy an ecological niche based on waste from human settlements."). Not sure where it should go even if it is included. It doesn't make sense to me in general since these dogs were fed and didn't scavenge like what a normal pariah dog does.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do all the sources call it a pariah dog? As you say, given that they were kept as livestock, it seems an ill-fitting term... FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

In general, yes. Specifically about the Tahitian kind not so much. It seems that even the sources usage of pariah dog refers to Indian pariah dog which many believe is an ancestors of all the Polynesian Dogs. I've removed it from the intro since it seems more appropriate to include in the umbrella article. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "released the dogs and turned them loose" Aren't you saying the same thing twice here?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "naturalist Georg Forster brought" He has already been p0resented once by this point, you could just say Forster.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "They were tested with the poisonous arrows" What is meant by this?

• I changed it to arrow poison instead. It is described in detail by Forster here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Seems there is plenty of room in the article if you want to add a couple more contemporary depictions.
• "was either done drawn by" Done drawn?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "it was introduced to Tahiti and the Society Islands by the ancestors of the Tahitian (Mā’ohi) people during their migrations to Polynesia." This should be stated explicitly outside the intro too.

• Added at the beginning.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "They were an essential part of traditional Tahitian society."

• This is intended to summarize native use for implements and the breast ornaments.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would mention the supposed native name under history too, and incorporate footnote B into the article body, it seems like something that could be elaborated on. I'm not sure what the footnote is trying to say, that the name may be incorrect?

• No that is the only source for a native name and it got it wrong. ʻŪrī Mā’ohi, the way a modern Tahitian would write it, is not in any sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "the whole was covered with the rest of the hot stones, and the mouth of the hole" Whole:hole?

• That's Cook's exact words? I think it means: Whole as in the whole dog and hole as in the hole that was dug to cook it in.-- KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, all looks good now. Last thing I can think of is that you could maybe mention that all Polynesian dog breeds are extinct? Also, I just looked at an old painting I had added in the Tahiti rail article, seems there's a dog in the boat at the right, I wonder whether it is mentioned in the literature?:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Added a short sentence explaining that. That one is not mentioned in Luomala's research which is the only source that has taken the time to look at Western art and identify the dogs in them. I am going to stick with the identified depictions so not as to promote original research.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, just a question. Well, all seems done, so I'll go ahead and promote this, interesting subject! FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)