Talk:Dog

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Starting up the review. Thanks for the patience, Wolverine XI. There are several existing reviews and talk page comments that I'll go through. Traumnovelle, I've watchlisted the talk page and subscribed to the thread at Talk:Dog#Health_conditions; you can also ping me about any issues you find. The organization looks good and is similar to Featured Articles (like Elephant). I'll go through section by section along with checking the older reviews:

• Two sources are cited in the Bibliography but don't have any inline citations pointing to them: Coppinger & Schneider (1995); Miklósi (2007).
  • Done
    • @Wolverine XI: I see two inline citations to Miklósi (2007). Both of these need a page number. Also, why have the unlinked citation down in the bibliography if the full citation is given in the body text? I still don't see any inline citations pointing to that source. For Coppinger & Schneider (1995) "Evolution of working dogs", there is one inline citation with the page range (which is great), another inline citation without the page range (why not just use a named reference here?), and then the same citation again in the bibliography without any links pointing to it (why have it down there if the full citation is given inline and nothing points/links to it?).Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Taxonomy section is lacking in topic sentences. It takes a linear kind of story-telling approach. The first line is about Linnaeus but should probably be about dogs and their taxonomy.
  • Done
• There are many details about studies, but it's not clear whether dogs, wolves, and dingoes are [a] all one species, [b] separate somehow, or [c] disputed somehow.
  • Dogs diverged from wolves, and dingoes diverged from dogs. They are all connected.
    • Yes, and that could be more explicit in the article. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already say that "dogs originated from wolves" and "dingoes are considered dog breeds", so I'm a bit confused here. Nevertheless, I changed it a bit.
• Evolution is an empty section. If sources on dogs talk either about the evolution of the wolf, dogs' early divergence from wolves, or the feralization of domestic dogs back to wild dogs, any of that could go here. If nothing should go here, then the section heading should go.
  • Removed
• "Domestication" is also very chronological and it makes it somewhat unclear.
  • Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more.
• Consider glossing "commensal"
  • Not seeing what's wrong with the word
    • The word is fine. Dog will likely have readers unfamiliar with commensalism. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actioned
• The meaning of "taxed" is unclear.
  • Fixed
• "In 2021, ..." this is towards the end of "Domestication" and the wording plus placement make it sound like this is just one study, but is this study not offering the academic consensus?
  • It is one study that also analyzes other sources...
• It's not clear from this article how domesticated dogs differ from wolves. Consider borrowing some sources from Domestication syndrome. Much of the research into that idea deals with domesticated dogs and other canines (wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc.).
  • Done
• "Their behavioural traits include guarding, herding, hunting,[17] retrieving, and scent detection. Their personality traits include hypersocial behavior, boldness, and aggression." traits that they were bred for? I feel like a sentence is missing right before this.
  • Actioned
• "All healthy dogs, regardless of their size and type, have an identical skeletal structure" One comment from the next section and I'll pause. It's not clear what this means. It just afterwards mentions the tail differences. The last paragraph is all about diverge in skull shape. The previous section ended talking about how variable breeds are. Look at these dudes.
  • That's what the sources say. If we ignore slight differences in skull and tail morphology, their skeletal structure is basically the same.
    • @Wolverine XI: Okay, but the meaning is not clear in the article's text. Other editors at Talk:Dog#skeletal_variation also expressed confusion. Cunliffe (2004, p. 12) talks about skeletons that are "markedly different", but "all have an equal number of bones". The point is about how the vast differences in dogs' body types comes from the size, "length, thickness, quality, and strength" of bones.[12] The other citation, Fogle (2009, pp. 38–39) seems like a stray footnote; I see the "Skeleton" section starting on page 46 but may have the wrong edition of the book. Fogle (2009, p. 46) talks about how the early timing of sexual maturity causes giant breeds to have longer bones and says that "dwarfing [...] reduces the length of the long limb bones and enlarges the joints" for little dudes like dachshunds.[13] I think that Fogle (2009) is in line with what you're saying and what Cunliffe (2004) is saying, but there are better ways to present it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pausing there. I'll pick up later.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Responded to all of the points listed above. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to clarification question above, I'll offer an example of what I'm talking about. I'm suggesting that an inverted pyramid approach to organizing some of the information will make things more clear in this section. Some paragraphs have a clear topic sentence like, "Dogs are the most variable mammal on earth, with around 450 globally recognized dog breeds.". Other paragraphs and sections start from either from a chronological beginning or use a study as the topic. I think this makes things less clear. The first line in particular stuck out to me as an odd place to begin. Compare:

Current text beginning with 1758 and Linnaeus

In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus assigned the genus name Canis (which is the Latin word for "dog")^[2] to the domestic dog, the wolf, and the golden jackal in his book, Systema Naturae. He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and, on the next page, classified the grey wolf as Canis lupus.^[3] Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata in Latin term), which is not found in any other canid.^{[4](6 October 2024)}

References

1. ^ Gear, Robyn (2020). "Medical disorders of dogs and cats and their nursing". In Cooper, Barabara; Mullineaux, Elizabeth; Turner, Lynn (eds.). BSAVA Textbook of Veterinary Nursing. British Small Animal Veterinary Association. pp. 532–595.
2. ^ Wang & Tedford 2008, p. 58. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWangTedford2008 (help)
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference linnaeus1758 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Clutton-Brock1995 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Suggested text beginning with taxonomy:

Dogs are domesticated members of the family Canidae. They are classified as a subspecies of Canis lupus, along with wolves and dingoes.^[1][2] Dogs were domesticated from wolves over 14,000 years ago by hunter-gatherers, before the development of agriculture.^[3][4] The dingo and the related New Guinea singing dog resulted from the geographic isolation and feralization of dogs in Oceania over 8,000 years ago.^[5][6]

Dogs, wolves, and dingoes have sometimes been classified as separate species.^[2] In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus assigned the genus name Canis (which is the Latin word for "dog")^[7] to the domestic dog, the wolf, and the golden jackal in his book, Systema Naturae. He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and, on the next page, classified the grey wolf as Canis lupus.^[8] Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata in Latin term), which is not found in any other canid.^[9]

References

1. ^ Freedman, Adam H.; Wayne, Robert K. (February 2017). "Deciphering the Origin of Dogs: From Fossils to Genomes". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 5: 281–307. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110937.
2. ^ ^{a b} Thiele, Kevin (Apr 19, 2019). "The Trouble With Dingoes". Taxonomy Australia. Australian Academy of Science.
3. ^ Perri, Angela R.; Feuerborn, Tatiana R.; Frantz, Laurent A. F.; Larson, Greger; Malhi, Ripan S.; Meltzer, David J.; Witt, Kelsey E. (9 February 2021). "Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (6). doi:10.1073/pnas.2010083118. ISSN 0027-8424.
4. ^ Skoglund, Pontus (June 1, 2015). "Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds". Current Biology. 25 (11): 1515–1519.
5. ^ Shao-jie Zhang; Guo-Dong Wang; Pengcheng Ma; Liang-liang Zhang (2020). "Genomic regions under selection in the feralization of the dingoes". Nature Communications. 11 (671).
6. ^ Cairns, Kylie M.; Wilton, Alan N. (17 September 2016). "New insights on the history of canids in Oceania based on mitochondrial and nuclear data". Genetica. pp. 553–565.
7. ^ Wang & Tedford 2008, p. 58. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWangTedford2008 (help)
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference linnaeus1758 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Clutton-Brock1995 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Hope that helps, and I'll review some of the older comments next to check off issues that have already been resolved, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that some version of the sentence "This timing indicates that the dog was the first species to be domesticated in the time of hunter-gatherers, which predates agriculture." should be the first sentence of the section it is in. This article will have a broad readership, many of whom will not immediately realize that 14,223 years ago is much earlier than other domesticated animals, none of which where domesticated during the Late Pleistocene ice age. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this section off, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 FA

No outstanding issues. Pretty cool to see how far the article has come.

2004 peer review

All about size. 7,000 words is a normal size. No outstanding issues.

2006 FA

No outstanding issues.

2007 GA

These weren't always transcluded? No outstanding issues.

2008 peer review

Most issues were resolved during the peer review. It mentions sourcing which I'll check later via spot checking.

2009 GA

Most issues are resolved. They note the lead was too short. I'll have to go through the body though to see if anything is missing.

2011 GA

Short review. Issues have been since resolved.

2021 GA

Noting again that the lead is too short, and some statements don't have a reference cited inline.

And that's it. I'll look through the concerns about the "Health" section when I get there. I don't have much feedback on these other than it's interesting to see how far the article has come in a couple of decades. The only outstanding concern is that the lead is short for the size of the article, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand the lead accordingly. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking since the lead was expanded, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many dogs! The images are used well. The addition of video and audio are excellent. All images are freely licensed. The following have issues with their copyright tags on commons:

• File:Dog morphological variation.png doesn't match CC license in source
• File:Dog coat variation.png doesn't match CC license in source
• File:Dog anatomy lateral skeleton view.jpg Add parameters to the public domain license template until the red error messages go away. This is in the public domain, but the entry needs to show why.
• File:Cerberus-Blake.jpeg Add the parameter for public domain in the US.

Let me know if you have any issues with license templates, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI: double-check the templates, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: I'm not picking up anything; what did I miss? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought the first two were typos. PLOS is making them available under the CC0 1.0 Universal. It's a public domain dedication with a public-domain-equivalent fallback license. The template for it is {{Cc-zero}}. The other two are fine now; the commons' public domain templates are more complicated than they need to be, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ✓: The source on dingo classification is a primary source that doesn't give the context and appropriate weight for WP:NPOV. I'll post some overly specific suggestions below, but it just needs to summarize a reliable secondary source to give the context around the situation before those specific facts in some way.
• ✓: In the Science (2020) source, the section "No detectable evidence for multiple dog origins or extensive gene flow from wild canids" verifies the statements about wolf lineage.
• ✓: The line "Dogs are the most variable mammal on earth, with around 450 globally recognized dog breeds." is a good topic sentence, but it needs to be rewritten to state the facts in an editor's voice. The source has, "dogs [...] are the most variable mammalian species on Earth [...] approximately 450 globally recognized breeds" This was added by retired editor William Harris, not the nominator.
• ✓: Checking some more bits from Harris: The line "In the Victorian era, directed human selection developed the modern dog breeds, which resulted in a vast range of phenotypes." is close to the source but not outright copying (WP:CLOP). Suggest rephrasing it. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences (2017) has, "the Victorian era of directed selection for fancy or novelty resulted in a vast range of dog phenotypes
• ✓: The rest of the paragraph citing the same sources and written by the same author don't have any issues. The sources verify the content and there is no close paraphrasing or copying.
• ✓: Checking more from Harris. The whole section "Touch" needs to be rewritten. It was copied with appropriate attribution to this article by the nominator from dog anatomy, but but was added there in 2015 by Harris. Wikipedia has, "Dogs have specialized whiskers known as vibrissae, sensing organs present above the dog's eyes, below their jaw, and on their muzzle. Vibrissae are more rigid, embedded much more deeply in the skin than other hairs, and have a greater number of receptor cells at their base. They can detect air currents, subtle vibrations, and objects in the dark. They provide an early warning system for objects that might strike the face or eyes, and probably help direct food and objects towards the mouth.[44]". The source, a 2012 blog post has, "specialised whiskers (known as vibrissae). Vibrissae are present above the dog’s eyes, below his jaws, and on his muzzle. [...] Vibrissae are more rigid and embedded much more deeply in the skin than other hairs, and have a greater number of receptor cells at their base. They can detect air currents, subtle vibrations, and objects in the dark. They provide an early warning system for objects that might strike the face or eyes, and probably help direct food and objects towards the mouth."

Current text summarizing the primary source:

In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/Species Survival Commission's Canid Specialist Group considered the dingo and the New Guinea singing dog to be feral Canis familiaris and therefore did not assess them for the IUCN Red List of threatened species.^{[1](9 October 2024)}

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Alvares2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Suggested text giving context from secondary sources:

The classification of dingoes is disputed and a political issue in Australia. Classifying dingoes as wild dogs simplifies reducing or controlling dingo populations that threaten livestock. Treating dingoes as a separate species allows conservation programs to protect the dingo population.^[1] Dingo classification affects wildlife management policies, legislation, and societal attitudes.^[2] In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/Species Survival Commission's Canid Specialist Group considered the dingo and the New Guinea singing dog to be feral Canis familiaris. Therefore, it did not assess them for the IUCN Red List of threatened species.^[3]

References

1. ^ Donfrancesco, Valerio; Allen, Benjamin L.; Appleby, Rob; Behrendorff, Linda; et al. (March 2023). "Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species: A case study on the Australian dingo". Conservation Science and Practice. 5 (3). doi:10.1111/csp2.12900. ISSN 2578-4854.
2. ^ Boronyak, Louise; Jacobs, Brent; Smith, Bradley (May 2023). "Unlocking Lethal Dingo Management in Australia". Diversity. 15 (5): 642.
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Alvares2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I've gone through everything added by Harris. Much of it seems fine? The below quotes should all likely be rephrased, so that we are copying the facts but not the wording:

• ✓: "Unlike other domestic species selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[93][94] In 2016, a study found that only 11 fixed genes showed variation between wolves and dogs.[95] These gene variations were unlikely to have been the result of natural evolution and indicate selection on both morphology and behavior during dog domestication. These genes have been shown to affect the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the majority of the genes affecting the fight-or-flight response[94][96] (i.e., selection for tameness) and emotional processing.[94] Dogs generally show reduced fear and aggression compared with wolves, though some of these genes have been associated with aggression in certain dog breeds."^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "Unlike the majority of domestic species, which were primarily selected for production related traits, dogs were typically selected for their behaviors. [...] only 11 genes with putatively functional substitutions differentiating all dogs and wolves. [...] these regions are unlikely to have been the result of purely neutral evolutionary forces. [...] point towards selection on both morphological and behavioral phenotypes [...] during dog domestication. [...] Strong selection in the initial stages of dog domestication appears to have occurred on multiple genes involved in the fight-or-flight response, particularly in the catecholamine synthesis pathway. [...] selection for tameness [...] emotional processing [...] dogs generally show reduced fear and aggression towards humans compared to wolves. [...] significant allele frequency differences that correlate with levels of aggression related behaviour within or between dog breeds in genes [...]"[14]
• ✓: "Another study showed that after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs faced with an unsolvable version of the same problem look at humans, while socialized wolves do not.[125]"^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not."[15]
• ✓: "However, more like cats and less like other omnivores, dogs can only produce bile acid with taurine, and they cannot produce vitamin D,"^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "However, unlike many other omnivores and more like the cat, the dog conjugates bile acids only with taurine (Haslewood 1964) and cannot make vitamin D, an animal product (Hazewinkel et al., 1987; How et al., 1994; NRC, 2006).[16] from Fascetti's earlier [Nutritional management and disease prevention in healthy dogs and cats https://www.scielo.br/j/rbz/a/nPV4DPcHDDzLMQgDWYmCMXC/?format=pdf&lang=en]
• ✓: "Children in mid-to-late childhood are the largest group bitten by dogs, with a greater risk of injury to the head and neck. They are more likely to need medical treatment and have the highest death-rate."^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "Children are the largest percentage of people bitten by dogs, with the majority in their mid-to-late childhood. The risk of injury to the head and neck is greater in children than in adults, adding to increased severity, necessity for medical treatment and death rates."[17]
• ✓: "pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners"^{(9 October 2024)}
  • "Pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners"[18]

Everything else that he added seems fine and also met WP:V, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck all of the above. I'm going to check out the changes in a bit, but all of the copying issues are resolved. Thanks for going through them. I checked the article in WP:EARWIG, and did some manual searches, and don't see other problem areas. All the copying from other articles has attribution. Marking this criteria down as met, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting while checking the recent updates and am done editing the article now. Looking good on 2d, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For [19], why not use the doi URL?
• What makes this travel business a reliable source for the cited content?
• What makes this dog chiropractor a reliable source for the cited content?
• What makes this dog bowl business a reliable source for the cited content?
• What makes this animal rights group a reliable source for the cited content?
• The first 3 bullets in "range" need citations.

There are some other sources that look odd from the citation but check out. These all look good: the Jewish library source is for Jewish customs,[20] the student essay won was published by the university and won some kind of award,[21], the tertiary sources aren't citing anything controversial, and a couple blog sources are subject matter experts.[22][23][24] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out the next section. Issues listed below:

• Issues with "identical" are noted above.
• Not required for GA: If you want to nominate this at FAC there are probably several ways to show the different types of dog skulls. File:Selected skulls.jpg already exists, and commons:Category:Dog skulls in left lateral aspect has side views of many skulls that could be combined into a comparison.
• The sentence beginning with "The fovea centralis" is verified by the source, but the earlier sentences in the paragraph are not.
• Dogs are red-green color blind possible source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717654/
• Dogs and most other mammals have two types of cone cells to our three: https://www.livescience.com/34029-dog-color-vision.html
• A comparison to deuteranopia may be a useful thing to mention and link.
• Dogs also have issues with brightness discrimination and visual acuity. Check out this source: "Based on these studies we can state that the brightness discrimination of dogs is about two times worse than that of humans. [...] According to these measurements dogs' visual acuity is four to eight times worse than that of humans."[25]
• Not required for GA: Check out the images in this section. Feel free to use either one of these to illustrate differences in dog eyesight.
• "being familiar with" is a bit odd. Is there a more direct way to say that?
• "A dog's dewclaw is the five digits": A dewclaw is a digit, maybe the fifth digit was meant here.
• "Some publications thought that dewclaws in wolves": thought is past tense here; was this disproven? The state of the research isn't clear (disproven, proven, disputed, still under study, etc.).

And that's it. This one went pretty smooth. The tail section was especially clean. I had no idea they could wag to one side. "500 dogs would need to have their tail docked to prevent one injury" is a solid way to be clear about the situation without taking a side (good NPOV). I'll pause again, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me until the end of the day to address all concerns. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rush; it's a broad topic, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll begin in about 12 hours, which is at around 14:37 (UTC). Right now, I have to prepare for yet another work day :(. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed everything. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ✓: The editor who raised issues before has addressed them all by editing the article, so I'll mark that off above.
  • Noted
• Under lifespan, it says that it varies among breeds. Are there any general trends for breeds that have longer or shorter lives?
  • Added
    • @Wolverine XI: The study offers two notes on its conclusion that should be summarized in some way for NPOV. It notes that it's including new "designer dog" crossbreeds and that it can't control for the fact that someone willing to pay for a purebred dog is also willing to pay for better care for the dog.
      For criteria 3: Other studies show that fully mongrel dogs live about a year longer on average than dogs with pedigrees. Also, long-nosed dogs have higher life expectancies than flat-faced breeds. For free-ranging dogs, less than 1 in 5 reach sexual maturity, and the median life expectancy for feral dogs is less than half that of dogs living with humans. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rjjiii: Completed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding "bitch", we can just say "female dog" instead of having the article say bitch and then including a glossary to explain that it means female dog.
  • Fixed
• ✓: For Cancer in Dogs and Cats, the benefits of spaying are a running theme. This meets NPOV.
  • Noted
• I'd cut this, "Inbreeding depression is considered to be due mainly to the expression of homozygous deleterious recessive mutations.[87] Outcrossing between unrelated individuals, including dogs of different breeds, results in the beneficial masking of deleterious recessive mutations in progeny.[88]". The article explains why inbreeding depression is relevant to dogs. It makes sense to next explain what inbreeding depression is (with a link to that article) and to note what types of dogs have the most issues (designer dogs and Asian pariah dogs probably don't have nearly the same level of inbreeding). The two sentences are trying to explain how inbreeding depression works, but that can just be handled in the broader article. Some of the material added in 2016 is citing a 1987 study. Since 2016, there have been new relevant studies[26] that are cited and summarized at Inbreeding depression.
  • Removed

Noting a few issues above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI: Okay, that's all of the issues that I noted. The four appendices all look fine (Terminology, References, Bibliography, and External links), also. I already checked some of the sources in Ecology and don't see any major issues reading through it. I'll try to review the remaining section (Roles with Humans) soon, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider wiki-linking the first Dog behavior.
• I feel like "is the internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of the domestic dog (individuals or groups) to internal and external stimuli.[93] Dogs' minds have" could be replaced with just "has". If there's some nuance there, it's going over my head.
• Gloss colostrum
• "Colostrum peak production was around 3 weeks postpartum" Milk?
• "Dog communication is how dogs convey information to other dogs, understand messages from humans, and translate the information that dogs are transmitting." The opening sentence of dog communication is a more concise explanation, "Dog communication is the transfer of information between dogs, as well as between dogs and humans."^{(30 August 2024)}

That's it for this section, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit "apparently" or clarify the uncertainty.
• These two sentences should be rephrased to more directly say their meaning: "Within the second half of the 20th century, the first dogs' social status major shift has been "commodification", allowing it to conform to social expectations of personality and behavior.[196] The second has been the broadening of the concepts of family and the home to include dogs-as-dogs within everyday routines and practices.[196]" It's not really clear what "commodification" means in the first sentence. Haven't dogs been raised, bought, and sold prior to 1950?
• This is also unclear, "A vast range of commodity forms aim to transform a pet dog into an ideal companion.[197]"
• "such traditions date back to antiquity" This doesn't meet NPOV presented this way. Simoons FJ (1994) says that dogs were used as a food source by prehistoric humans to an unknown extent (200), and until relatively recently dogs were eaten in East Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the Pacific Islands (203). He says that it was not commmon in Southwest Asia (India), Europe, or Iran (204). He notes religious pressure (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian) as steadily reducing the consumption of dogs as food (204). An additional concern is that this source is 30 years old and things have changed significantly in the past 15 years with the rise of social media, online activism, and pet ownership. I'm going to list some sources below; I don't think you need all of these sources but hopefully at least one of these helps to give more context to the situation:
  • "Lately, though, Asia has been ditching dog. In January South Korea joined China, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore in banning the dog-meat trade. Cat meat is sometimes banned, too. Regional bans have spread, from Cambodia’s Siem Reap province to India’s Nagaland state. Enforcement is being tightened. In February officials in Hong Kong arrested five Vietnamese caught hawking frozen dog and cat meat. Even in Vietnam, where the trade is still legal, shops are closing."
  • "Thirty million dogs a year are killed across Asia for meat. There are estimated to be more than 91.49 million dogs and cats kept as pets in China. An estimated 10 million dogs a year are killed for China’s dog meat trade. ... Most people in China don’t eat dogs, in fact dog meat is only eaten infrequently by less than 20% of the Chinese population."
  • "Every year in Vietnam, an estimated five million dogs and one million cats are captured, stolen, trafficked and brutally slaughtered for their meat
  • "South Korea announced plans Thursday to compensate famers and others in the country's dwindling dog meat industry before a formal ban goes effect in 2027, a move that is drawing opposition from both farmers and animal rights activists. ... South Korea's parliament passed a landmark bill in January that will ban slaughtering, breeding or selling dog meat for human consumption after a three-year grace period. It will be punishable by 2-3 years in prison."
  • "Despite the perceived benefits of eating dog meat, consumption is decreasing, especially among younger generations. As of 2020, more than half of surveyed respondents supported a ban on consuming dog meat. Just three years prior in 2017, less than 40 percent supported such a ban. ... In addition, the number of Koreans who believe that consuming dog meat reflects poorly on the country is on the rise, up from 36.7 percent in 2017 to 57 percent in 2020."
  • "“The dog-eating stereotype has historically been utilized to belittle Asians and Asian immigrants,” writes Jean Rachel Bahk in the Inlandia literary journal. “I was incessantly pestered about whether the meat in the side dishes I brought for lunch was dog meat” she recalls about her own childhood. ... The study used AI to chart the tone of more than 200,000 speeches since the 1880s, and found the hostile rhetoric in the way Republicans discuss immigration today is very reminiscent of that used against Chinese immigrants in the late 1800s, when they were targeted by the nation's first country-based restrictions on immigration.
• Related to the above, "In Korea" is talking in the present tense about farming dogs for food but ends by saying that eating dogs and raising them to be eaten is going to be illegal.
• Under "Health risks" mention breed-specific legislation. Many countries and municipalities have banned dozens of large dogs.[27][28] It only needs a sentence or two but should be covered.

@Wolverine XI: And that's it. The dogs as food section and the "In Korea" subsection both need to be gone through. Some of the material is out of date and some of it is giving undue weight. The other issues are all pretty minor. I made a few copyedits while reading. Nearly done, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will address these issues promptly at 15:30. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Completed all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI: Bullets 2 & 3 are still reading weird to me. Striking all the completely resolved issues. Health risks looks fine. There are still some issues with dogs as food. It's almost certainly NPOV to have a whole section on Korea when they're outlawing it and at least two other countries eat more dog meat. I am thinking the most clear structure for that section is something like 3 paragraphs. First the history of it, second eating dog meat today (by location), and third a single brief paragraph on Korea and the conflict about it there. I may take a shot revising some of this by the weekend if you don't beat me to it. I'll almost certainly pass it (unless I get like pancaked by drunk dump truck driver). I wanted to give you early notice before passing in case you want to do a DYK for it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Better now? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: OK, am I missing something with the dog meat section? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI I just haven't fully gone through it yet. The other two were much easier to check. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean, "Although Indians residing in the Americas regularly fed off dogs, the majority of those living in their homeland rarely fed on such meat." I'm reading through the source, but on Google Books which leaves out several pages. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source says it was common among Indians in the Americas on page 200 but not in the Indian subcontinent on page 203 or 204. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: I see you've started a little something on your sandbox; how is it coming along? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have caught me! Yes, I am and will be done by the weekend. Feel free to double-check any of my work. The "Indians" in the source above are Native Americans, not Indians from India. It's common in twentieth-century sources to still use that terminology, and if you go back to the eighteenth century you can find some really odd stuff (like Moundbuilders). For pre-Columbian dogs, some of the best sources are going to be in Spanish. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Can't wait to see the end result. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI: This weekend I'll look things over for minor issues and pass the article. Take a look at the section I updated and let me know if you have any objections or questions. Feel free to polish anything you notice as well. Before I wrap up the review did you want feedback on any aspects of the article? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Thanks for updating that section; it looks much better and more comprehensive. Thanks also for the time and effort you invested in making sure everything was up to par. That said, I don't believe any part of this review was overlooked. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI: I looked it over and only noticed a few issues in the lead. Since I could address them with small tweaks or pulling up body text, I did. I also set the formatting to CS1 for the couple of CS2 citation templates. Take a last look to fix anything, and I'll pass it soon. I don't see any issues that fall below the GA criteria remaining. Thanks for the patience and for taking the time to work on an article like this (broad scope, highly viewed, rated vital). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Made a slight edit to the article, and that should be it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]