Talk:Pumi dog/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 10:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a handful of edits to this article when it was first nominated in December: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6 (very minor); and 7 (also minor). Since that time I am aware it was quick failed but that this was rescinded.

Some initial observations:

The links in the infobox to the breed standards for the ANKC and Dogs New Zealand need to be fixed;
There are discrepancies between the weights/heights given in the IB and the body text;
The image in the IB has a watermark; this should not be included especially as it seems to feature a kennel name;
The Health section currently appears to be very US-centric;
The last sentence in the Recognition section has a cn tag; the information does however appear to be incorrect - the correct figures published by The Kennel Club for the last four years can be found here;
The last sentence in the Activities section is presently unreferenced;
There are a number of refs to unreliable sources. For example, a kennel's personal website should not be used as it is a self-published source (and can often be a means of advertising). See Veresi Akacos Pumi Kennel (presently ref #14) and this (presently ref#21) seems to be a personal blog?

I do appreciate that this is not an easy article as, except mainly in Hungary, the recognition of the breed is still in its infancy in comparison to others. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and many thanks for taking this on. As you say, this is a common breed in some non-English speaking countries (Hungary, Finland, Sweden) that is newly recognised in the English-speaking kennel clubs.

I have now repaired the links for the AZ and NZ standards;
The measure problem was using imperial measures as the principal. I have now replaced with metric weights and heights as per the FCI/UK standard, converting into imperial;
The IB image is in Commons. Nevertheless it is an unusual looking Pumi so I have now replaced with another, also from Commons;
There are more Pumis in the US than any other English speaking country, and the health section does draw heavily from the US club website. I will see what other sources are available;
The UK registration figure is the current living registered dogs, whereas the KC data is annual registrations (births/imports), and the two won't balance because of deaths, exports etc. I believe the 90 figure is correct but it does need citation;
Citation 21 addresses the last sentence of Activities (wild boar hunting) - I believe this was originally drawn from the cited book at 20, but as I don't have this, I added citation 21. There are a fair few sites that confirm Pumis were/are used for boar hunting;
Citation 14 contains useful information from a Hungarian site on the origin of the Pumi. Although the website belongs to a kennel, the article was (as it says) commissioned by the Hungarian Shepherd Dog Assocation (and is likely on its site, in Hungarian) and therefore I considered it reputable. Citation 21 is a translation of material from the Estonian Kennel Club. MapReader (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so quickly, MapReader. I can see that you're working on the article so I'll leave it a few days and check back.

I did notice that the first paragraph under the Appearance section contains the sentence "This is known as fawn with mask in other breeds in the AKC." - this obviously is not included in the reference from the KC;
Could you also have a look at the formatting of some of the refs, please? For instance, ref #1 needs more detail (publisher etc);
In the first para of the Recognition section, it states "In 2015 there were 881 Pumis ... 29 in the UK ..." yet the KC records show that it was 2014 that had 29 registrations.

Sorry this is so piecemeal at present; I'll wait until you've had a chance to do further updates before starting a top to bottom review. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. OK, I have had a go at expanding the citations where I can, added a couple more, and replaced the one for the coat colour with a Hungarian one that also offers some stats. The data on Pumis by nationality comes from the map at citation 26 (which appears to be a PhD thesis?), which offers contemporaneous data across the world (I left out the Belgium figures since these are clearly wrong, simply GE Hungarian data again). The guy says that his research was based on yearly birth numbers from kennel clubs, so he likely did the research using end 2014 data, and published his thesis and website in 2015, which would balance with your UK data. I have amended the article accordingly, and also the KC data to support the UK figure at the end of the article, using the formulation "about 100" which fits both the cumulative KC data and the private info I have that slightly fewer than 100 are now living in the UK. For the time being I am done. MapReader (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few minor copy edits; please have a look, MapReader, to make sure I haven't done anything wrong etc. I was checking for close paraphrasing and noticed that there is a lot of similarity with this site; I strongly suspect that it has copied from WP rather than the other way round as it looks like that was last updated in 2010 and the info was in the WP article long before that. Although I can find archived copies of the website, the earliest archive copy of that page seems to be November 2010. I wonder if Nikkimaria or Justlettersandnumbers, who both have far more experience in this than I do, would have the chance and be kind enough to double check that my reasoning is correct about that as I don't know how else to ascertain it?

There is also some wording which is close to the sources: Canine Chronicle and the dogencyclopedia that needs to be addressed, please. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyedits look fine. Personally I am relaxed about the per cent sign, which most readers will nowadays be used to seeing, but note the MoS. I agree with you that the site likely copied its material from WP before my recent copy editing. I have done some more c/e to deal with the two citations you flag, noting that the auto-comparison does throw up a lot of short phrases that would hardly be considered copyright! MapReader (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the wording of the dogs.com.au site appears to have match earlier sources, eg here - would be worth checking whether both it and this article were paraphrased/copied from the same earlier source. Otherwise I agree that this content predates the dogs.com.au content. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria, much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started to re-check this article earlier in the hope I could start to finalise this review. Unfortunately, I am still finding information that is not in the reference supplied - for instance: "Black and tan, brown, blue, and wolf-coloured puppies are born occasionally." is not in the KC source as far as I can see. In the next paragraph, the detail concerning the length of the coat (7cm/3inches) is not in the 'Go Pets America' source. I am also concerned that there is still overly close paraphrasing - for instance: the article has "The Pumi trademark is its alert and lively ears" from the source "The Pumi trademark is its ears, which are always alert and very lively." and another example: article "The breed evolved spontaneously, and was not the result of planned breeding.", source "evolved spontaneously ... ... and was not the result of carefully planned breeding."
I feel it would be best if the article was thoroughly checked and could then be nominated again. I realise to fail it is disappointing, especially as the nominator has responded very quickly to points raised, but I don't feel the article is yet close enough to fulfilling the GA criteria. Other suggestions for possible inclusion could be info on hip scores for the breed in the UK and possibly incorporate the health test recommendations from the UK breed club. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, but thanks nevertheless for the time and work you have put into this article, which is already improved as a result of the process, which at the end of the day is what we are all aiming for. MapReader (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]