Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cat[edit]

Mougie likes this article.

In the past this article has had some edit wars, likely because everyone wants a picture of their cat somewhere on Wikipedia, but those have been resolved. This article is very detailed, covers every aspect, goes into the history of cats, and has plenty of inline citations and references. Toothpaste 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral a good resource and an interesting read but the tone in some areas are not encyclopedic. Instances: "Virtually all...", "cats are very clean", "Indoor cats will also benefit from", "Cats enjoy many plants", "Cats are said to be 'the perfect carnivores'" Who said it? A reference needed. The diet, social and hygiene sections can do with some tweaking. Will support only after changes are made. Q: Does cats urine glow in the dark? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

    • I fixed the parts your first two quote reference, but I didn't write it, and I don't have reference material, so I can't say who said it. Having a cat, I could say that cat urine doesn't glow in the dark, if you're willing to accept my original research as an answer. Thanks for the commentary. Toothpaste 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

***1) I'm still not happy with the "perfect carnivores" claim. See WP:AWT. From what I've seen on Animal Planet there are many animals who can also dispute this claim. 2) "It should be cleaned daily and changed often (depending on the type of litter—clumping litter stays cleaner longer). A litterbox is recommended for indoor-outdoor cats as well." This reads more like a guide for keeping cats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I found some of the parts relating to cat behaviour to be questionable. As I understand it the best interpretation of purring is that it is connected to calmness: a cat that is calm will purr automatically, but a cat that needs to make itself calmer (eg if it has been injured) will make itself purr to calm itself down, slow down its heart rate etc. This isn't mentioned in the article. Also cat signals through displaying its tail are not mentioned: tail straight up to indicate interest and friendliness, tail curled to indicate concern and questioning, tail wagging to indicate frustration and anger, tail down to indicate defensiveness. And nothing about the cat's continuing belief that to really make friends, humans need to smell their cat's rear end, and continuing bemusement when even the friendliest human declines the offer. David | Talk 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a body language sub article for this type of content. Which is a good thing, since one of the criticisms here is that main article is already too large Psychofox 02:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is an interesting nomination in that nearly everyone believes themselves to be an "expert" by virtue of having loving relationships with their cats. That compells the authors to meet a higher standard than is required for other featured articles; similarly to a highly controversial topic (GNAA comes to mind), every claim must be stated in careful NPOV language and clearly referenced to a demonstrably authoritative source. Otherwise, loads of people will object to any old thing, or point out tidbits to add. Whether or not this is "fair", it is what must be done for this article to pass this FAC nomination, and rightly so. As for myself, I'm no "expert" (cats make me sneeze!), so I'll count myself out of this one and watch from the sidelines. Bantman 18:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Doesn't mention that they taste good. --SPUI (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Things that in my opinion need inline links to references:
      • "the oldest-known cat lived to age 36"
      • "There are 32 muscles in each ear and the cat can move each ear independently."
      • "Humans and cats have a similar range of hearing"
      • "Cats can judge within three inches the location of a sound being made one yard away."
      • "A domestic cat's sense of smell is about 14 times stronger than a human's."
    • Calico and Tortoiseshell is listed as a variety but the former is a redirect to the latter.
    • "...Some environmentalists claim" - what enviromentalists?
    • —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:27:50, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
      • Unless these are actually controversial statements without consensus among biologists, only the "some environmentalists claim"-passage needs a specific reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability is about making sure we can support our claims with decent literature lists, not to pepper our article with an excess of footnotes. We have a quite serious over-usage of footnotes in a lot of our FAC's. / Peter Isotalo 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not much of a fan of footnotes myself, but here I have to agree with Sig - these are facts that could reasonably be questioned or disputed by a good-faith reader of the article; therefore they should be footnoted. - Bantman 18:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • How can one reasonable question any one of the facts except the weasel wording "some environmentalists"? All of the examples appear to be perfectly straightforward statements of physical facts, the kind than can even be proven beyond any reasonable doubt with practical experiments. If biologists are not disputing any of these facts, then there is no need to use footnotes just because people might be too lazy to actually reference the sources themselves. Footnotes can be very disruptive to a text either by distracting the reader or making it seem more academic than it actually is. They are not intended to state the obvious; that's what we do in the actual text, which is then scrutinized in the FAC process and approved by community consensus. Even if I personally don't know if these specific facts are true or not, I consider it completely unreasonable to question them merely on the basis of my own ignorance. / Peter Isotalo 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be suggesting that we accept on faith all that we are not experts in. I think this is an easy way to get duped. If footnotes are disruptive, use an invisible system; the point is that facts such as these should be easily verifiable. - Bantman 03:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, we just misunderstood each other here. I fully support the use of {{inote}} since it does not effect the end result for the outside reader. Of course, some moderation would be prudent here too... / Peter Isotalo 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article! Very thorough. --K1vsr (talk) 20:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't see what was so wrong with it. Images appropriate (fair use at a minimum/not at all), much content without going overboard. -- A Link to the Past 01:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support It meet the feature article standard (I think) --Kiba 01:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose at this time. Too much detail at this point for one article. Lead and table of contents too long. Has a classic problem of too many people trying to put too much into it without splitting off side articles. Also attracts a lot of editors putting up photos of their own personal cats that don't really help the article that much (feral cat photo clearly not feral, and so forth), although there are a few professional level ones on there now. (And to the above editor, if you aren't sure what the standards are, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article.) DreamGuy 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Question: By the way, the talk page says it failed to get featured candidate in the past, but the page it links to goes here and the archive doesn't have it. I'd like to know if the objections from the last time around were addressed at all, and what they were, and so forth. Anyone know where to see them? DreamGuy 02:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
The first attempt is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat/archive1. I will try to address the table of contents, but I agree, we should do some forking. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what the heck, his just failed a vote a few days ago. It's completely inappropriate to start a new page with new votes at this time. The old one should be unarchived and these votes (if they are new) should be merged into it. DreamGuy 03:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, though most of the things I saw on the first FAC were just comments. Oppose until items from the first FAC and this FAC are solved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC) I am going to sit this one out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support *Object this time. Points raised by me last time have not been addressed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Redwolf24 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A little long but I think it is FA worthy gkhan 21:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - at the risk of being lynched, I'd say we need to cuten up the wiki a bit. All this foreign stuff is getting boring. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, hear that sound of someone running? That's me getting pitchforks and villagers :P Cuten the wiki........dear lord :D gkhan 08:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Possibly needs some trimming, but article content quality is good and material is suitably encyclopedic in character. Subjects raised cover a good range of topics applicable to the subject; possibly slightly long, but it isn't too long compared to some other featured articles. Nice photos, quite a delight to read and informative. I can't see any reason why this article specifically shouldn't receive FA status. --NicholasTurnbull 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article is extremely well done, and worthy of even print encyclopedias.--AirIntake 15:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - I promised myself I'd never do this... but I object on the grounds of inadequate referencing. On such an accessible topic, we must use at least a couple book references. The internet references should also be formatted to indicate the source website without having to follow the link to find out. As it stands, the referencing section, although well-intentioned, has a suspect appearance. - Bantman 19:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Book references are needed, but missing. A reference is made to point out that this is not just made up. Toothpaste has been looking for book references. -- A Link to the Past 19:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I was considering an urban legends section, since cats are popular figures in urban legends (Chinese food, suffocating of children, etc.). Comments? -- A Link to the Past 19:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I spent many hours a couple of months arbitrating a dispute between several people regarding the content of the images on this page. It had been protected for over a month... I am amazed how far it is come in that time. Psychofox 02:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As long as the "Cat using the toilet" issues is unresolved. Please vote on this issue in Talk:Cat Psychofox 13:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The lead section is too short for an article this size. 3 good sized paras needed. --mav 00:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you change if I edited it to your liking? Because the guy who said it was too long doesn't seem like he'll change his vote anyway. -- A Link to the Past 00:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, mav's right, the lead section needs an extra paragraph. =Nichalp «Talk»=
  • Support, I'm no expert on cats so I have to trust the facts written, but the article seems fine in all other ways. -- Elisson • Talk 22:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it seems odd to me that the article on the housecat is at Cat while the cat family is covered in a separate article; I'd expect the cat family to be the main topic at Cat and the domestic cat to be somewhere else, but maybe that's just me. And I agree with mav that the lead needs work; it should read like a mini-article in itself. Also, it's not necessary for featuring, but it'd be nice if someone could get audio of meowing and purring sounds. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked the lead now, since someone asked nicely :-), but it could still use work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)it also should be noted that the indoor cat is not always clean it is also vernable to five differentsubstancails such as the head lic dander and many forms of deases that thde care owner might be caring on with none know that taht may accure[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cat/archive2&oldid=1138457184"