Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fox hunting/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:08, 15 February 2008.

Fox hunting edit

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it has reached the required standard, which is especially difficult with relation to maintaining NPOV in a subject which many people find very emotive. The article is well referenced and brings in arguments from all sides of the debate, with no major point overlooked. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment but hoping to support (and congratulating Owain for his work on the article). I am concerned at the choice of photographs. Several are bland and hence repetitive pictures, adding nothing to the article. Yet the controversy section of this controversial subject is denied any current photos due to a misplaced consensus at the article talk page.
I also think the external links could do with a review and prune. MikeHobday (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Web references need to include the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. This source isn't reliable enough as its self-published. Epbr123 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this now. Not all web sources contain a reliable date, for example [1] to the University of Michigan. Does this make them inherently unreliable, or do you recommend case by case analysis? Thanks MikeHobday (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing dates only need to be included if they're available. Sources without dates aren't necessarily unreliable. Epbr123 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Identified self-published reference replaced, all weblinks now have requested details where available (I think). MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First, the writing is choppy, and seems to bounce around between ideas. Second, there are way to many one or two-sentence paragraphs, which could easily be merged together and make the article easier to read. Third, there are several short sections with one or two sentences, and only one reference. Finally, if you could move some of the picture to the left, it would make the article look better. Juliancolton Talk 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below for stuff for others. Agree about the short choppy paragraphs. Consider merging or expanding them to make the prose less choppy.
Done a bit of this, please do advise typical shortcomings and I'll use that to look through the article. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, a number of the web citations are not fully formated with as much information as possible. At the least, they need the date they were accessed.
Done as much as I can see, glad you can have a more detailed look. If you point out typical shortcomings, I will address them. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how reliable some of the web sites used as references are. (For full disclosure, I don't usually edit in areas that HAVE many websites) Q&A Online?
That one's gone! Controversy in fox hunting has peaked relatively recently, so there's quite a lot online. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also noted some sentences in the Controversy section that were uncited, especially under Pest Control, where there are statements pro and con that are unsourced. There are other spots that need citations besides there, though.
Had a run through. Again, do say what else could be referenced. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I noticed on a very quick glance. Will try to find time to do a more detailed look pretty soon.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through the above stuff, since I've detailed below. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the following details:
  • The lede consists almost entirely of short one or two sentence paragraphs. This is very chopy and hard to read. Expand and combine to make the lede more comprehensive and less choppy.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section, early hunting subsection. I'm unclear what this section has to do with fox hunting, quite honestly, especially the first paragraph. Is there a plain "Hunting" or "History of hunting" article that could be referred to for background material like the first paragraph? The second one at least at the very end mentions foxes.
Done, not sure about the link to the article - can anyone else help? MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and subsection, you mention beasts of the chase, but what's the diff between veenery and chase? Chase is just dropped into the paragraph with little context or explanation of why the beasts for it should be different than the ones for the venery.
Done by virtue of above edit. MikeHobday (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose in early hunts in England section seems off to me, very stilted. "The passing of the Enclosure Acts from 1760 to 1840 had made hunting deer much more difficult in many areas of the country as that required great areas of open land." is just plain awkward. Try "The passage of the Enclosure Acts made deer hunting difficult by cutting down the large areas of open land required to chase deer." or something similiar.
That done, but clear that section is lacking - I've added a new reference, but more work is needed here. MikeHobday (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US subsection - Consider moving the current (2006) stats to a "Current status" or something similar section. It reads a bit odd in the "history section"
  • Same for the current stats in Australia and Europe.
  • History section feels very skimpy to have so many subsections. Definitely feel the need for some expansion or combining here, because of the short stubby subsections giving a choppy feel to the text.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to specify Imperial measurements also. Use the handy {{convert}} template.
Couldn't find that template, but done with others. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You go into great detail about the habits of the red fox, then only mention that the gray fox can climb trees. Makes the coverage seem off.
Adjusted, gray fox seems a minor quarry according to reference, so downgraded in article.
  • Quarry section also has a good number of short stubby paragraphs, consider expanding or combining.
  • You need to capitalize Thoroughbreds or use purebreds instead. Thoroughbred is a breed of horse. In the context here, it's clear you're referring to the English Thoroughbred, correct?
  • Animals of the hunt. Short paragraphs again.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in the Procedure section.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drag hunting, the second paragraph (which is a one sentence paragraph!) I *think* there is a missing "in" in the sentence, but I'm not entirely sure.
Done, plus add cite. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Burns Inquiry? It's referred to a few times in the Controversy section without explanation. Also settle on spelling is it Inquiry? or Enquiry?
Amazing what you miss whe you're too close to the subject! Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might explicitly link the "Government inquiry into hunting with dogs" with the Burns Inquiry.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider culling down the external links section, it's rather large.
Done. Do advise if still too long. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the three books at the bottom aren't used for references in the text, I'd use them in a "further reading" section that is separate from the "external links" section. Likewise, if you're using the Burns Inquiry report in the footnotes, I would think it doesn't need to be in the external links section, but double check with one of the FA regulars on that, I'm hardly an FA regular.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with regard to further reading. I'm tempted to keep the Burns Inquiry pages as they are so seminal. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Places needing citations:
    • Early Hunts in England subsection: You need something to cover the whole section before the Game Laws relaxation in 1831, all that bit about Enclosure acts and fences and stuff is opinion and needs sourcing, and it is obviously NOT covered by footnote 14 which is the 1831 Game Laws.
    • I know the red fox isn't indigenous to NA, but it needs a cite. (If you can't find one online, check out the Yellowstone National Park website, I think they have something on there about studying the native foxes that are up in the mountains).
    • Cite for the number of registered packs in NA.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Australia subsection, last sentence needs a citation (In the US, accusing folks of spotlighting prey doesn't go over well in some circles, not sure how it would be in Oz land.)
    • Procedure section - "and hunt seat riding in the US" and the second paragraph need citations.
    • Autumn subsecton, last sentence of the first paragraph, most folks won't believe that animals have to be taught to hunt, could use a citation.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • American variations subsection, last sentences of the first paragraph need a citation.
    • Shooting foxes subsection, last sentence of first paragraph and the second (stubby!) paragraph need cites.
    • The opening paragraph of Controversy is uncited. Definitely can use them.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pest control, second paragraph, last sentences need citations, as well as the last sentence of the fourth paragraph.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Animal welfare, last sentences of the second paragraph needs a citation (I'm guessing PETA would say that it isn't rare) Also last sentence of the third paragraph (I'm guessing that PETA would disagree also)
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Available alternatives, last sentence of the first paragraph needs a cite
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You caught the next to last sentence, but it's really the fact that drag hunts are faster that needs the cite. Not being a foxhunter, I wouldn't think that it would be any faster with a drag than with a live prey one.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regulation, last two sentences of the first paragraph could use a cite.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In popular culture section, need a cite for the fact that the movie has a happy ending compared to the book. Also for the fact that the listed children's books have a pro-fox message.

I'd definitely give the article another look after these have been addressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. My humble opinion is that, especially compared to the hounds sections, the horse section is given short shrift, it's a bare summary, not well sourced, lacks detail, is far too sparse. I would oppose this as an FA until this section is expanded, preferably be someone who knows fox hunting horses. I may make a few edits, but I am not an expert on field hunters. I also concur with the comments that the article is a bit choppy. I tweaked it a little, but it will take more than what I did. Also, the materials on attire are not wholly accurate, many critical nuances are missed, I'm not an expert, but the hat thing alone is not properly covered. I don't have time to explain why, but the Chronicle of the Horse forum sort of gives you the picture. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references to "fox hunting" in Australia are really a separate subject, and perhaps deserve a different article, wikilinked at the top of the article.MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes. Incomplete citations (many missing publishers) and inconsistent citation style (many publishers listed incorrectly as authors, resulting in some publishers before the title, and some after). Inconsistent date linking in the citations, some linked, some not. External link farm should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. Incorrect endashes (example, ... hunting bill 2000-2001, with traditionally ... ). Incorrect use of logical quotations. Missing WP:NBSPs. Incorrect WP:MOSBOLD ( ... each have a Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) which consists ... ) and in the "Red fox" section. Incorrect WP:ITALICS ( ... In Australia, the term "Fox Hunting" is also ... ). WP:SEASON confusion in the "Main hunting season" section (specify each case, Northern and Southern). WP:MOS#Captions problems with punctuation differences between full sentences and sentence fragments. Cite needed tag when I read. Incorrect use of WP:HYPHEN in place of dash (example, ... Hermann Goering on July 3, 1934 in the Reichsjagdgesetz - one of the first laws ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you advise on one point? In many cases, the author is a corporate entity and also publishes its own material. Should it be listed twice? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, an author is (usually) a person (sometimes something like a study group could be listed as author), a publisher is an entity; just leave author blank when there is none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done as much as I can - frankly need some help with the hyphens and dashes. MikeHobday (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose. The lead is misleading, with a very incomplete definition of fox hunting. As defined implicitly by the content of this article, "fox hunting" is humans on foot or on horseback chasing a quarry using a pack of scent hounds that work off lead. I suggest adding a section that clearly distinguishes this form of hunting from others involving dogs. Eg, hunting pigs, where the dogs' job is to trap the quarry until the human arrives to kill it. The human does not chase. Or hunting deer with dogs, where the dogs' job is to go around the quarry and drive it toward the hunter. Here again the human does not chase. Or hunting birds with dogs from on horseback...ditto. Also, the discussion of drag hunting needs expansion; it is my understanding that drag hunting is far more common and popular than the article suggests, but there is an art to laying a good scent trail for the hunt to follow. --Una Smith (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also tell us what happens to the hounds once they retire. --Una Smith (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead rephrased more clearly as per suggestion;
Drag hunting already well referred to - it is a separate subject after all
Article already says "hunts ... commonly put down their hounds after their working life has come to an end, which is usually only about half their lives (five or six years)" MikeHobday (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: archived with 4 opposes (in case there is a bot delay). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fox_hunting/archive1&oldid=1083676830"