Talk:Akita (dog breed)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark Y comments when I think they're resolved, highlight N any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

I think American Akita should always use the name "American Akita" (or "Akita Inu" when referring to the ancestral Akitas) to avoid further confusion. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through changing it, and re-read it, however, to me it is still a problem (so I have held back on the change at this point). The only place it is recognised as an American Akita as far as I know is through the FCI (and possibly Japan?). England and the UK, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada all know it simply as Akita. Wikipedia lists it as American Akita probably since the term Akita now generally refers colloqually to both breeds. In the US and Canada, they are considered the same breed, the Akita. I think where the article mentions Akita it is referring to both the American and Japanese style dogs. Keetanii (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading American Akita and re-thinking, I think this article has a lot of content that is not relevant to American Akita and should be in Akita Inu: --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the early history section? I do believe the early history section is still pertinent to this article. The American style Akita is the most widespread and popular of the Akitas in the english speaking world, and many still consider them the same breed. The history of how the breed was almost extinct after WWII is also important to the American Akita since it could explain some of the health problems in the breed (Autoimmunity is a problem in both the Akita Inu and American style Akita). Keetanii (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- All of section "Japanese History", except that the final paragraph, "During the occupation years following the war, ... imported many of them into the US upon and after their return" should be in both articles, as the link between the two and the rise of the American breed. "The ancestors of the American Akita were originally a variety of the Akita Inu, a form that was not desired in Japan due to the markings, and which is not showable" should also be in both articles. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, agreed. I've been dreading getting arount to the Akita Inu Article because it could basically be the same as the American Akita page with a few things added/removed/changed slightly. I'm at a loss as to what to do there. Keetanii (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your "it (Akita Inu) could basically be the same as the American Akita page with a few things added/removed/changed slightly" is the key. I'd merge them into Akita (dog) (Akita is a DAB page), with paras / sub-sections where they differ (build, colouration, possibly dogshow criteria). As you've said, they have so much in common, including history, behaviour and medical issues. In that case the first step would be to remove the "redirect" from Akita (dog), copy Akita Inu to Akita (dog), and then make Akita Inu a redirect. Then merge American Akita into Akita (dog) and finally make American Akita a redirect. --Philcha (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like you could ask from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs is active and such issues may have been encountered with other dogs. --Philcha (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, I've nominated for GA Portia fimbriata, a jumping spider, where there are 3 regional variants with significant differences in hunting tactics and performance. --Philcha (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be the best way to go about it. I'll see what I can come up with in a sandbox first. Thanks Keetanii (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have so far, Akita (dog) sandbox, sorry if there are spelling mistakes it's 3:30am here and I'm a little sleep deprived. Comments are much appriciated. Keetanii (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft looks very promising. I'll comment tomorrow, as I'm also tired (not caused by your work :-D) --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also tomorrow I'll try to get an admin to tell us to merge the Talk pages Talk:Akita_Inu and Talk:American_Akita. --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up the merge discussion at Akita Inu and American Akita. --Philcha (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the rules about merging, and the merge (if you still think it's a good idea) should not be done until the very end of July 2011. If the discussion on the merge, at Talk:Akita_Inu, results in no merge, I'll continue the GA review of American_Akita. If the merge goes ahead, I will have to show American_Akita as "not listed", as one of the GA criteria is must be stable. In that case I'll do an informal review of the merged article, to give it a good chance of passing a formal GA review - by some other reviewer, as by this time I would be too involved. --Philcha (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Section "Breed Split Debate" should also be in both articles, as the regulatory bodies has caused a confused situation, which is not fully resolved. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I thought it was...I'll have a look and see what happened. Keetanii (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I now think there's little chance of phylogenic analysis, as the Akita Inu was cross-bred with German Shepherd Dogs during WWII. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on the surviving dogs from WWII, I'll have a look and see if I can find anything. Keetanii (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That means that my comments under "Structure" are moot at best. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I think we need a thorough look at the structure. I'd prefer the article to start with assuming that at least some readers know only the name of the breed. This case includes the split of opinion between the various Kennel Clubs. How about something like: --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "What the breed includes", based on the current section "Breed Split Debate". IMO we should be honest up-front, to avoid greater confusion later in the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at this. Keetanii (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Section "Size and appearance". At points it will refer back to the debate. --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "Behavior" --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "Relationships with humans". Follows on from "Behavior". Includes use as pets, working dogs, show and competition dogs, etc. (PS How to Akitas compare with collies, which dominate agility competitions in UK? Only if you know already, don't spend much time on it). --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "Health". Including lifetime. To which maladies are Akitas most vulnerable, and to which are they most resistant?
- Section "History" (excluding "Notable Akitas", see below). Including how the breed apparently became almost extinct in WWII - if I understand the article correctly? Is it possible to go further back into the history, using part(s) of Spitz#Origins? I note that the main reference at Spitz#Origins is effectively offline, but Googling for "dog phylogeny" looks promising (e.g. Origin and Evolution of the Domestic Dog is almost on the money, in page 1 of "ordinary" Google) and Google Scholar for "dog phylogeny spitz akita" looks very promising. If the result not is not too complex, a {{cladogram}} would an asset, as general readers can often understand a diagram more easily than technical prose. --Philcha (talk)
- Section "Notable Akitas" giving the story of Hachikō (reminds me of Greyfriars Bobby), Akitas declared a Japanese Natural Monument, and Helen Keller' Akitas/

(sections)

Dead links and DAB pages

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable.

Images

I'll check the images when the content is stable.

Lead

I review the lead last, to check that all of it is based on the main text.

Since a merge, if done, will not take place until July 2011, it means the article will be unstable until then. This, combined with consensus over at WT:GAN, means that I will temporarily fail the article. Should a merge not happen, I can undo the fail and have this restarted so that it's not stuck in the backlog for months on end. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review should continue to show "Not listed", as the merge has been done, see Akita (dog). --Philcha (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]