Jump to content

Talk:Australian Cobberdog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 12:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Dionysius Miller (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Australian Cobberdog; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

The article is new enough and long enough. The article contains no plagiarism and is neutral, but I have some doubts over its sourcing: websites of breeders (which this article cites regularly) are not the high-quality, independent sources we want to use on Wikipedia. (See WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE for more information.) The best way forward would be to replace them with articles in scientific journals or the like. As to the hooks:

  • ALT0: Is in the article, cited, and definitely interesting. But I have doubt that Dogking, as a commercial site, is a reliable source.
  • ALT1: The article talks about the breed's acceptance as a "new pure breed by the semi-obscure Master Dog Breeders and Associates (MDBA), a worldwide breed registry". But that part doesn't say that they're the only labradoodle to accomplish this. (Do point me to the correct spot if I'm looking in the wrong place.) The sources used to back up the info are not of a high standard (a pet insurer's website and a Wordpress site).
  • ALT2: Again, the fact is interesting and in the article, but the sourcing is not convincing.

@Dionysius Miller: the article and the hooks are in principle suitable for DYK. But I can't let this nomination go through since the sourcing is not compliant with Wikipedia's standards in many places. Take your time to really familiarise yourself with what makes a good source, taking as your staring point the links above. I will leave the nomination open in the meantime. Do notify me if you have any question. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback! I half figured that the (exceedingly obvious) conflict of interest for the sources might pose a problem, though the easily found and deeper sources have generally been as such. I did, however, just come up with a couple less Cobberdog biased (and in one case decidedly anti-Cobberdog) sources.

Source wise, this one relies on a little more of a pair if the biased DogKing is thrown. While this is again not an exceedingly scholarly source, it is a background on the purpose of the Australian Labradoodle through a non-Cobberdog source. This, in tandem with an article from a third-party creates the fact that the Aussie Lab (and by extension Cobberdog) was the first attempt at a unique breed specifically for being therapy/assistance dogs AND that the Aussie Lab is not recognized. DogKing is biased but does act as an opposing, agreeing source here and specifies the breed's nature as "first" more clearly.

  • ALT1: This one should probably be able to work as proposed. The provided source does say "The Australian Labradoodle is a developing dog breed, not yet purebred." and "Labradoodles, sometimes called the American Labradoodle are primarily a hybrid dog[...]"

However, this is additionally shown by the previously mentioned Dog Academy article and by any source mentioning Labradoodles and/or Australian Labradoodles. If requested, I can absolutely supply those here also.

  • ALT2: This one is only really particularly interesting when left as is so I'll defend it as written.

Yet again my favorite Dog Academy article says the dog is "a friendly, sociable dog that is active, playful, and good with children [and] other animals [and] is suitable for first-time dog owners." the other animals line does not mention birds & rodents specifically, though it is a decent defense to support the previously posted pet insurance page. Additionally, I'd contend that the pet insurance page is a reliable and reasonable enough source given that it is at least mostly impartial, given that it has profiles of most every breed and crossbreed, and should be more accurate by nature given that its purpose is to establish the health and actions inherent to any given breed with some accuracy.

this (very biased) source mentions birds and rodents specifically, as does DogKing which has come up in this response more than I intended, and this tabloid source obviously a tabloid is not a very acceptable source for Wikipedia for obvious reasons but it is worth mentioning in the context of the acceptance of a certain fact or concept.

@Modussiccandi: Thank you again for reviewing and especially for the feedback! Dionysius Millertalk 15:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience! I think your problem lies a bit deeper than at the level of these hooks. To be eligible for DYK, the article as a whole needs to be well-sourced. To achieve this, you need to understand what sources can and can't be used on Wikipedia. For example, we do not generally use commercial websites as sources. (There are narrow exceptions, see WP:VENDOR.) Dog Academy clearly is commercial, as is the website of every single breeder. The article contains good, reliable sources (e.g. Pet-Specific Care for the Veterinary Team by Ackermann)-such sources must be the basis for the entire article to the complete exclusion of unreliable ones. If a particular piece of information cannot be found in reliable sources, it won't be able to feature in Wikipedia until it can.
So, my suggestion would be to clean up the article's sourcing first and then we can think about the hooks again. If you're unsure about what sources to use, do read WP:RS, WP:IS and perhaps WP:REFBOMB. Feel free to ask me for help at any time! Modussiccandi (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dionysius Miller: Have you addressed the above concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Unfortunately I've been preoccupied by some WikiProject upkeep and haven't dedicated the time. I'm not sure I intend to put it into a state worthy for a DYK or anything the like. Dionysius Millertalk 02:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the above comment, I'll mark this for closure. This can be reversed if anyone would like to adopt this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy claims.

[edit]

Whilst a book written by a veterinarian is a reliable source I'm skeptical about the claim still. The breed is incredibly novel which makes such data hard to obtain. Furthermore other life expectancies given in the book are contradicted by proper studies, even kennel club surveys which is a lesser reliable way of calculating life expectancy give lower numbers for some breeds than the book.

It doesn't officially list any sources but for further reading it recommends https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/dog-life-expectancy (along side other questionable sources) and I noticed that for 10 random dog breeds I selected: all of them matched for the claim given. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting point. Admittedly, I took the book at face value. I'm not certain if a more reliable study has ever taken place (they are quite novel). That being said, I'm not sure which would be the proper way of noting that: taking the life expectancy point out or qualifying it with a note on the verifiability of the source. Dionysius Millertalk 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to have any form of life expectancy that's reliable for such a novel breed. Personally I'd remove it as it's better to have no information than information that likely isn't true. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, though I would note that development started in the 90s and the current effort in the early 2000s. The breed has been registered since 2012 if I'm not mistaken.
To play devil's advocate: 12 years post-registration and decades after practical completion, it's not entirely unreasonable?
If you think otherwise then I'd agree that the life expectancy should be removed until a reliably sourced, in-depth study takes place. Dionysius Millertalk 20:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the breed has been developed before recognition you still need a sizeable population to gather life expectancy data.
There's nothing in the list that indicates any research has been done and given the contradiction between the book and verified studies I'd wager it's just an estimation/kennel club listed numbers than any actual research that has been done. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Tabloids'

[edit]

@Dionysius Miller Those sources aren't even tabloids. They lack naming of an author and any form of editorialisation or publishing. One of them is simply a breeder's personal website. Neither source meets WP:RS. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF seems applicable here in that a organization selling a different breed of dog is giving the history of said dog in a way that does not give itself undue credit or express extreme views. WP:AFFILIATE also doesn't prohibit this use case when discussing similar pages.
This context doesn't propose any fringe theories, claims of grandeur, or the like. The specific claim of these sources is that eight breeds went into the creation, and then a list of them is given. Listing characteristics of a product (weird word for this use case but semantically correct) that you are selling in a reasonable way is permitted so far as I'm aware. In general, the lack of reputation of these sources is not necessarily an issue in the context of their use.
The first source is a tabloid from a "unified" source and the second is a vendor, both of which are sometimes permissible. Dionysius Millertalk 22:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except dogjournal and doodledogs aren't talking about themselves - they're discussing the history of a person and his endeavours. Dogsjournal isn't a tabloid either, just a self-published website with a bunch of generic dog articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't breed clubs/associations reporting on their found either. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Cobberdog&oldid=1211118646"