Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dog

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChristieBot (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 4 October 2024 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:24, 4 October 2024 by ChristieBot (talk | contribs) (Transcluding GA review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Dog is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Wolverine XI at 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Domesticated canid species

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dog. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dog at the Reference desk.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
May 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 25, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDogs Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Section sizes
Section size for Dog (37 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 6,219 6,219
Taxonomy 9,799 16,747
Domestication 4,749 4,749
Breeds 2,199 2,199
Anatomy and physiology 51 20,163
Size and skeleton 3,625 3,625
Senses 7,751 7,751
Coat 1,172 1,172
Dewclaw 1,352 1,352
Tail 6,212 6,212
Health 8,054 25,515
Lifespan 4,158 4,158
Reproduction 4,772 13,303
Neutering 5,246 5,246
Inbreeding depression 3,285 3,285
Behavior 10,648 25,433
Nursing 4,578 4,578
Intelligence 3,558 3,558
Communication 6,649 6,649
Ecology 14 19,488
Population 3,493 3,493
Competitors 4,885 4,885
Diet 5,449 5,449
Range 5,647 5,647
Roles with humans 4,123 55,603
Pets 5,383 5,383
Workers 5,281 5,281
Shows and sports 1,437 1,437
Dogs as food 16,123 16,123
Health risks 5,905 5,905
Health benefits 9,209 9,209
Cultural importance 8,142 8,142
Terminology 1,107 1,107
See Also 35 35
References 17,359 17,359
Bibliography 1,579 1,579
External links 1,768 1,768
Total 191,016 191,016

skeletal variation

"All healthy dogs, regardless of their size and type, have an identical skeletal structure…, although there is significant skeletal variation between dogs of different types." isn't this a direct contradiction? Miiyooh (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that variations in tail bone count and the baculum in male dogs mean that they are, in fact, not identical. Better wording would be something like “Dogs’ skeletons generally are morphologically similar regardless of size or breed, though notable variation in bone structure and arrangement, tail bone count, and (in male dogs only) the baculum means significant variation exists.” Or something like that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I actually don't find that contradictory. The structure is the same, for instance in the foreleg, where there will always be radius and ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges. Within that universal pattern, there can be wide variation in factors like length and thickness, etc. Compare whippets, afghan hounds, bulldogs, and corgis. Dgndenver (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
No, the types of bones are the same they just vary in size. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DHWANI ASHISH PATEL (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rajandeep Kaur Dhaliwal, Rajatrana1.

— Assignment last updated by Rajatrana1 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nearly Extinct Gray Wolf

Rework sentence or change extinct to Pleistocene. Gray wolves are not extinct 97.126.89.248 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It once read "an extinct population of gray wolves", which is accurate because these were genetically distinct, however with the passage of time and people making uninformed changes to the lede of the article, this has now become lost. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Though people nearly hunted wolves to extinction in the lower 48 states, northern gray wolves have returned to the Great Lakes, the northern Rockies, California and the Pacific Northwest. But just as the U.S. was making progress for gray wolves, protections were stripped. Credits: Defenders of Wildlife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.254.72 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I took an initial swing at copy editing the article, but it needs a LOT of work. I started removing the excessive use of semicolons, adding commas in some areas and breaking others into separate sentences. Much of the article, especially in the behavior section, needs more copy work done. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

wrong link

The link for "welfare-purpose dogs" goes to an article about warfare, rather than welfare... whether the leaking abstractions are from "broken telephone" or "AI hallucinations", the failure to lead towards peaceful employment of canine friends is slightly distressing. 80.230.56.154 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Changed it to service dogs, which is what I presume the term refers to. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Dog saliva

Dogs are a significant reservoir and source of zoonotic pathogens and infections from contact with dog saliva can result in serious infections, even necessitating amputations of legs and arms. See The Shocking reason that this man's legs had to be amputated: dog saliva and A Woman Needed Her Hands and Legs Amputated After Contracting Infection from Dog 'Kisses'. The general public is largely ignorant of this serious health issue so this article on dogs should mention that fact. I could add a note to this effect under the 'Health" section (since dogs spread diseases to each other through saliva as well as to humans) but perhaps it merits adding a new section on 'Dog Saliva'. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Dewclaw section needs copyediting.

Many grammatical errors. As written: “ A dog's dewclaw is the five digits in the dog's forelimb and hind legs. Dogs' forelimbs' dewclaws are attached by bone and ligament, while the dogs' hind legs' are attached by skin to the limb.”

Probably should read “Dewclaws are a dog’s fifth digits. Dewclaws on the forelimbs are attached by bone and ligament, while the dewclaws on the hind legs are attached only by skin.”

Some technical errors, however. Dewclaws are the first digits - not the fifth - in standard comparative anatomy notation. Even better would be: “Dewclaws are digits, corresponding to thumbs and big toes in humans, (though not functionally so). They are located above the other four toes, on the inside (medial) side of the limb. Dewclaws on the forelimbs are attached by bone and ligament, while the dewclaws on the hind legs are attached only by skin.” 2601:206:8586:7990:ACDA:A385:FF91:3C22 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KayMyrs (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog/GA4. 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)

Reviewer: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)


This will probably the longest and most extensive GA-nominee I will have the pleasure of reviewing, so this may take some time. However, I will work to see it through. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Wolverine XI 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I tagged unsourced and poorly sourced parts of the health section. I may be able to source them myself. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was totally uncalled for. Wolverine XI 20:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Tagging unsourced content that appears to be sourced due to later citations is uncalled for? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please provide the freaking proof. Wolverine XI 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This paragraph 'Some breeds of dogs are prone to specific genetic ailments such as elbow and hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, pulmonic stenosis, a cleft palate, and trick knees. Two severe medical conditions significantly affecting dogs are pyometra, affecting unspayed females of all breeds and ages, and gastric dilatation volvulus (bloat), which affects larger breeds or deep-chested dogs. Both of these are acute conditions and can kill rapidly. Dogs are also susceptible to parasites such as fleas, ticks, mites, hookworms, tapeworms, roundworms, and heartworms that can live in their hearts' is sourced to this: The only thing this source can verify is the bolded part. The reference clearly does not support the rest of that content hence why I tagged it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
What about the other sentences you tagged? Wolverine XI 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm meant to spend my time proving that for every tag instead of you just verifying it for yourself if you don't believe me? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Man, it's late here; I'm too tired to verify these sources. I can't check them tomorrow morning either, since I have to head to work early. And I'll be very busy with paperwork by the time I arrive home, so I think it's best you stop talking and start proving. Wolverine XI 21:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
But if you wish to fix the "perceived" sourcing issues, you may. I'm not stopping you. Wolverine XI 21:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh great scare quotes. You're acting like you own this article and that I am required to satisfy you. Misplaced Pages is collaborative and that means trusting editors unless you have good reason to doubt them. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Trust is earned not given away to anyone. Wolverine XI 21:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In a collaborative project like this, one generally starts with at least some confidence that other participants are acting in good faith. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
 Done with the sourcing issues, and apologies to Traumnovelle for my less than collaborative behavior. Wolverine XI 03:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Where does this study: say that certain breeds are predisposed to hip dysplasia? It just states ' CHD is a disease that can affect all breed types, with a higher frequency occurring in purebred canines, and does not discriminate against a specific breed size.' it doesn't support the statement. This study: doesn't mention cleft palate, stenosis, blindness, deafness, nor luxating patellas. The reference is also used for a claim about pyometra. The study just mentions pyometra twice in a graph and GDV isn't mentioned at all. Pyometra is mentioned in this study: but it doesn't establish it as occurring at any age (because it is related to the oestrous cycle). states GDV mainly and commonly affects deep chested and large breeds, not exclusively. this study has nothing to do with over-population. I tagged the ASPCA claim because there needs to be a secondary source
Also Dogtime is not an RS, I have no idea why you added it there was no need for an extra ref there. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Why don't you fix them yourself? The sources I added support the claims made in that section. I will not respond further. Wolverine XI 03:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
They certainly don't. I've fixed some claims myself and have been looking through text books for one that provides a list/overview of notable/common conditions, although haven't come across such yet. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
While I kindly appreciate your input, @Traumnovelle, you and @Wolverine XI appear to be in some sort of a spat that’d probably best addressed on the main talk page for the Dog article, not its GA review. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I will nonetheless keep a close eye on any relevant new developments arising therefrom such discourse. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Great! Wolverine XI 02:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Irruptive Creditor: You there buddy? Wolverine XI 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I've had to work on some stuff IRL, but I am doing well. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Irruptive Creditor: Can you please continue? Wolverine XI 10:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
My deepest apologies; I am busy. I have no issue in forfeiting my review and to yield the GA-review opportunity to a more attuned editor. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: G7? Or can this still make it to the October "target articles"? Wolverine XI 19:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This GAN will not be deleted, but Rjjiii has already reset this and put it back in the queue. CMD (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI, Irruptive Creditor, and Chipmunkdavis: I didn't think that WP:G7 would apply since there are comments from multiple editors and so incremented the review counter (per WP:GAN/I#N4a). The entry stays in the same position on WP:GAN. Wolverine XI, are you asking about October target articles to attract a reviewer? If so, I don't mind picking this up later this week if nobody else does. It's good to see folks work on the Vital Articles, and dogs are fantastic, Rjj (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Thanks for your offer. I wouldn't mind an article review from you. And yes, you're right, dogs really are fantastic. Wolverine XI 03:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. Source check:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    This is the first one I have had time to review thus far. Overall, I see no indication of edit warring.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Checked IP status of all images used.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Roughly, I would say so. Placement is alright and captions are not outlandish. Although, the descriptions of dog molars and of phenotypes and morphological distinctions could be 'dumbed down' somewhat for a lay audience.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Health conditions

Currently the disorders listed are selected by users based on preference/belief rather than based on any authoritative source. I personally don't think elbow dysplasia is very common or notable for example. I do have a tertiary source: although it has so many conditions listed it might be exhaustive/too much. Other options would be one of these studies: although these tend to ignore notable conditions such as gastric dilatation volvulus Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. Rjj (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)

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

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:

Taxonomy (✓)

  • 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?).Rjj (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • 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 all one species, separate somehow, or 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)
        • 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"
  • 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, 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. 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. 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, Rjj (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
        Done. Wolverine XI 07:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

@Rjjiii: Responded to all of the points listed above. Wolverine XI 17:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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") 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. 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.

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. Dogs were domesticated from wolves over 14,000 years ago by hunter-gatherers, before the development of agriculture. 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.

Dogs, wolves, and dingoes have sometimes been classified as separate species. In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus assigned the genus name Canis (which is the Latin word for "dog") 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. 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.

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. ^ 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, Rjj (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wolverine XI 14:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
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. Rjj (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. Wolverine XI 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Marking this section off, Rjj (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking old reviews (✓)

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, Rjj (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I will expand the lead accordingly. Wolverine XI 16:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Striking since the lead was expanded, Rjj (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review (✓)

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:

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

Completed all. Wolverine XI 17:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine XI: double-check the templates, Rjj (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: I'm not picking up anything; what did I miss? Wolverine XI 11:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
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, Rjj (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. Wolverine XI 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, Rjj (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

First spot checks (2d✓)

  • ✓: 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. Misplaced Pages 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.". 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.

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. Dingo classification affects wildlife management policies, legislation, and societal attitudes. 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.

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. In 2016, a study found that only 11 fixed genes showed variation between wolves and dogs. 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 (i.e., selection for tameness) and emotional processing. Dogs generally show reduced fear and aggression compared with wolves, though some of these genes have been associated with aggression in certain dog breeds."
    • "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 "
  • ✓: "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."
    • "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."
  • ✓: "However, more like cats and less like other omnivores, dogs can only produce bile acid with taurine, and they cannot produce vitamin D,"
    • "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). from Fascetti's earlier
  • ✓: "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."
    • "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."
  • ✓: "pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners"
    • "Pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners"

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

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, Rjj (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I did some copyediting while checking the recent updates and am done editing the article now. Looking good on 2d, Rjj (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking cited sources (2a✓)


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, the student essay won was published by the university and won some kind of award,, the tertiary sources aren't citing anything controversial, and a couple blog sources are subject matter experts. Rjj (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all. Wolverine XI 18:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, Rjj (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Anatomy and physiology (✓)

The left half of the image shows the estimated difference in a dog's vision.
The bottom-right portion of the image shows the estimated difference in a dog's vision.

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."
  • 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, Rjj (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please give me until the end of the day to address all concerns. Wolverine XI 02:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
No rush; it's a broad topic, Rjj (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
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 02:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Completed everything. Wolverine XI 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, Rjj (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Health (✓)

  • ✓: 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?
  • 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. Outcrossing between unrelated individuals, including dogs of different breeds, results in the beneficial masking of deleterious recessive mutations in progeny.". 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 that are cited and summarized at Inbreeding depression.
    • Removed

Noting a few issues above, Rjj (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@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, Rjj (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Behavior (✓)

  • 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. 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."

That's it for this section, Rjj (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Completed all. Wolverine XI 11:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, Rjj (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Roles with humans (✓)

@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, Rjj (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Will address these issues promptly at 15:30. Wolverine XI 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Completed all. Wolverine XI 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@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, Rjj (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Better now? Wolverine XI 22:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: OK, am I missing something with the dog meat section? Wolverine XI 03:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine XI I just haven't fully gone through it yet. The other two were much easier to check. Rjj (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I see. Wolverine XI 03:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
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. Rjj (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
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 03:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: I see you've started a little something on your sandbox; how is it coming along? Wolverine XI 19:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
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. Rjj (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Awesome! Can't wait to see the end result. Wolverine XI 05:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@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? Rjj (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@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 10:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@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). Rjj (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Made a slight edit to the article, and that should be it. Wolverine XI 20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories:
Talk:Dog Add topic