Talk:Potcake dog

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Potcake dog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna

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.

Coverage

Y I looked at other dog breds at WP:GA, and think Potcake dog has enough aspects considering the breed modest origins. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Y Top-level structure looks fine. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

History

• Y At the end of the first para, "upon relocation" is redundant, as "... took their dogs with them" makes the point. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Removed. – anna 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y The ref to Who Knew: A 'Royal Bahamian Potcake' is a Dog, Not a Baked Good could look like a WP:SPS, which would be ineligible (well, almost all the time). In fact the publisher is Discovery Communications, LLC, so the page is back by a notable corporation - for brownie points, give either a wiki-link, or a web link to a page at the publisher's site which includes Animal Planet. "The Daily Treat", despite being in the page's title bar, is just advertising and should be removed. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  I had concerns about this source for that very reason and got a second opinion. I've updated the ref data and wikilinked "Animal Planet". – anna 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've changed the cite to work=[[Animal Planet]] | publisher=[[Discovery Communications]], LLC. OK? --Philcha (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Looks good. – anna 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y Re "Its name is derived from the term "potcake", which refers to the congealed rice and pea remains at the bottom of a cooking pot that Bahamians have traditionally fed to stray dogs", it would be good to add that there many feral dogs, citing Who Knew: A 'Royal Bahamian Potcake' is a Dog, Not a Baked Good's "estimates of between 5,000-8,000s Potcakes roaming wild (in Nassau)". --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done. It seems at odds with the figure the Nassau Guardian editorial cited (which itself cited stats from a Bahamas advocacy group), making me wonder whether one of them is off by a factor of 10 (84,000 vs 8,000). Nassau has a population of ~248,000, compared with New Providence's population of 330,000, so you'd think the bulk would be concentrated in the largest city. – anna 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'll check the numbers in the later section when I get there. What you did here is fine. --Philcha (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y I'd move the item about potcake and strays to the end of para 1, so that the section runs chronologicaly. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done. – anna 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  I've made the history of strays a separate para. OK? --Philcha (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, much better organization. Thanks. – anna 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Appearance

• Y I'd move the colours to the end of the 1st para, so that para 1 is all about seeing one in street and para 2 is what a vet would check. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done. – anna 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Temperament

• Y "Potcake dogs tend to be intelligent, loyal, calm, and hardy" is based Jane Parker-Rauw's comments in 2 articles. She is a committed fan of the breed, not objective. So you should say that this is Jane Parker-Rauw's view, per WP:NPOV. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Oy, good catch. Done. – anna 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y "have a tendency to wander if not properly confined or kept on-leash" looks inconsistent with "loyal" and "prefer being house dogs". --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  It does. I think "prefer being house dogs" may have been in reference to the cold climate comment, but to avoid speculation I've removed that. – anna 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Overpopulation and rescue efforts

• Y AFAIK Aww! Your next pet could be a ‘potcake pup’ does not support "most do not live longer than three years". --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed, it was in the LA Times article. – anna 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y The citation Aww! Your next pet could be a ‘potcake pup’ should say it's from msnbc - another case for the work=...publisher... trick. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done. – anna 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y I can't make sense of the numbers at Nassau Guardian - On potcake patrol. Perhaps the Guardian's source, The Bahamas Advocates for Animal Rights, has numbers that are better structured. --Philcha (talk)

  They seem fairly clear: 84,000 total dogs in New Providence -- 73,000 owned, 11,000 unowned (strays). 33,000 of the 84,000 total roam the streets (so some dog owners don't contain their dogs). I don't think that group has any information available online. – anna 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  I also guessed that meant there out-of-control owners. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y OTOH Nassau Guardian - On potcake patrol has other points that could be used: "negative publicity in New Providence in recent years about both Bahamians and tourists being attacked by roaming dogs"; (in) "New Providence, one of the first things they mention is seeing lots of sickly looking dogs". --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Incorporated. – anna 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  I split "most strays do not live longer than three years" into a new sentence. Otherwise it might meant the police lived only 3 years :-) OK? --~~

  Yep, that's better. Thanks! – anna 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y Once these are resolved, I think we need to look at the structure of the section, e.g. something like: too may strays, and while (e.g. locals don't like to spay/neuter, and perhaps many don't have the money); consequences for the dogs and for tourists; "remedies" (killing; more humane approaches). --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sounds fine. The way I have it set up now currently is split by country (first the status in T&C, then The Bahamas) and then the efforts that have received publicity. – anna 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y The Humane Society of Grand Bahama - All About "Amigo" also gives a good description of a stray's miserable life. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  As that's describing one dog, and not the condition in general, I'm hesitant to add it even though it seems obvious to most people. Do you think mentioning the evidently frightening condition of the stray potcakes implies this? – anna 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  There's also "One percent of tourists responding to questionnaires stated that the condition of the stray dogs was frightening or a turn-off" (plural). --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I did put that in; hopefully the condition is implicit. – anna 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable dogs

• Y "AMIGO served as an Ambassador of Hope for homeless and challenged animals before his untimely death from cancer in 2007" from BEKiND.org - Who. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Incorporated. – anna 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Did you have 2nd thoughts about Amigo's death? I've included it. OK? --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  I had included it in the following sentence: "He also served as an Ambassador of Hope for homeless animals until his death in 2007." – anna 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y Is there a successor(s)? --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. – anna 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y I didn't find Hollywood Life Achievement and Ambassador of Goodwill awards in the sources. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  They're on both pages. HSGB states: "Amigo was recently honored in Southampton New York by the Animal Rescue Fund of the Hamptons (ARF) and given the Ambassador of Goodwill Award, presented by movie star Alec Baldwin and in early December will receive the Hollywood Life Magazine Break Out Award, to be shown on the Showtime network." Further research showed that the "Hollywood" award was referred to by various names on various sites that were basically equal in reliability, but I've switched it to "Hollywood Lifetime Breakthrough Award" per the image of Alicia Silverstone and Amigo here. It's frustrating when sources refer to things by the wrong name, but this seems the most plausible (I was going by a news item put out by the BEKiND foundation previously). – anna 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) By the way, one of the sources described Amigo "walking the catwalk in fashion shows to benefit homeless animals" - catwalk? --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y Is there a pic of 1 or more skinny potcake dogs in poor condition roaming around the street. If so, you could move the pics of the black-and-white puppy up to the top of "Appearance". Even on my widescreen with the font reduced (CTRL and -), it fits. Then the stray(s) could go in "Overpopulation and rescue efforts". --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, no, there are few freely-licensed potcake pics (I looked through Flickr for quite a while). File:BahamianPotcake.JPG is available as well, but it's not in poor condition. – anna 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  I tried the image search tool FIST, and got nothing. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead links and DAB pages

• Y The links check for this article found:
  • Y What is a Potcake? – Turks and Caicos Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has only a link and title, needs the usual info for a citation. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

    That one's in the external links section (although perhaps it shouldn't be, since it's also used as a source). – anna 12:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

    I removed all of external links section. --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Y Ditto Island bliss—and potcake pups—in the Caribbean --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

    Article is appropriately cited as you can see here. False positive for the tool? – anna 12:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Y DAB check for Potcake dog found 1 disambiguation link. Run the checker report and then see what the "fix links" recommends. The usual options are: find a more precise wiki-link, e.g.(?) Lincoln (car); or unlink the item in your article. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  Now points to Wiktionary, as it's possible that some readers won't be immediately familiar with the term. – anna 12:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Y The 2 existing pics comply with policies. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• Y --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Result

Hi, anna. I'm very pleased to say that this article meets the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, is clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this, and for your prompt response to my comments - it's been a pleasure working with you. --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you've got 2 or more articles through GA reviewers, please try to review as many articles as you have nominated for GA review. --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Philcha! I'm very grateful for your comprehensive review and helpful comments. – anna 03:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

English variant

The article currently seems to be written in American English. Should I assume that's intentional, and keep it that way? The places these dogs inhabit are politically and historically more British than American, but on the other hand, there's not much information about what variant of English is used there for writing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intentional, per se, but I did consider what you're saying. It would probably be more consistent to keep it in British English so I'll go change what I can (though it's possible I'll miss something). All measurements were originally given in imperial units. Anna ^talk 00:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognised breed?

So after reading this it seems that they are basically stray dogs of any mix of breeds, and no-one other than the Bahamian Islands and Turks and Caicos recognises them?

This is not a breed, as any mix can get into this classification, indeed the defining parameter seems to be "stray". If I took a wolf over there and it bred with a beach dog its stray puppies would be potcakes and if I took a Chihuahua over there and it bred with a beach dog their stray puppies would also be potcakes. Rather strange that most of the items I have just read, after reading most of the many of them are refs, seem to put "breed" of dog rather than breed of dog to denoting that they aren't really one. In fact the msnbc ref only mentions the word breed once, and not even in calling this mix of breeds a "breed". The Bahamian Kennel club list of breeds of dogs doesn't have them on it, so why are they a "breed"?

The article gives the impression they are some special breed, rather than a name for a stray. The wording of the infobox "Recognised by the Bahamas Kennel Club under Group 9" is also extremely misleading. The actual list of recognised breeds is here, where it is not listed: ("This is a listing of the breeds currently recognized by the Bahamian Kennel club").Chaosdruid (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They are described as a breed, whether correctly or not, by several sources; however, I didn't use that terminology for the reasons you are describing. If there's a specific part that seems misleading, we can work on it, but this article does not call it a breed at all or even imply that (with the exception of the info box, as I share your opinion on that). I chose the more accurate "mixed breed dog type".

Discovery.com - "The stray dogs became an official breed, the Royal Bahamian Potcake, in the Bahamas the late 1970s, but a fancy name hasn’t done anything to keep them off the streets."

T&C Humane Society - "Although officially considered mixed breed dogs, Potcakes are recognized as a breeded dog in The Bahamas and this is the case in the Turks and Caicos Islands."

I don't see quotation marks in these excerpts and couldn't find them around "breed" in any of the references -- am I missing something? The Bahamas Kennel Club PDF indicates what was described in the article, though "Recognized" certainly isn't the best term. Would "Listed separately from the mixed-breed dog" be better? They are specially denoted and IMO that's worthy of note. Anna ^talk 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but their "list of recognized breeds" does not include it. It may be on the list as "non-registered", the list is actually the "List of Breeds accepted by the BKC showing Group" (bottom link in the red box on their homepage [1]), which surely agrees with what I said about it not being recognised? Perhaps information about Group 9 should be included? In this context, it is akin to a Kennel club allowing a mixed-breed group at a show.

That sentence talks about "most of the items I have read ... seem to put "breed". I admit that the part in commas could mislead readers into thinking that was specifically about the ref articles - however it was related to the "many items I have read", intended to mean that I had read most of the refs. I have reworded it.

I am not sure what you mean by "specially denoted", they are certainly notable, as proven by the number of articles and refs to them.

Lastly, I do not think that having someone describe them as a breed means that is correct, in fact there is no mention of them on the UK or US Kennel Club breeds listings.

I agree that they are notable, deserve an article and are depicted on the whole correctly; I just cannot agree that they are a breed, nor that they are recognised as one - apart from having a non-registered category in a Bahamian show where it seems the UK equivalent would be "mixed-breed". Chaosdruid (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that they're not recognized by any major kennel clubs or registries (though that's not the only criterion for being considered a "breed" and would certainly garner some disagreement :-). I don't consider it a breed myself and, aside from the poorly worded info box note, thought it was made relatively clear that it was a type of dog, in the general sense -- not the one depicted in the dog type article, which is why I didn't link it. Other than that, what you're saying is true and does need to be rectified; that's just sloppiness on my part. Saying they were recognized in the late 70s as whatever name is implicitly saying they're purebred but jibed with what the ref said -- and if those countries do think they're purebred, I figured I'd let that speak for itself. "given the name Royal Bahamian Potcake" would fix those issues, I think.

My comments were related to what you wrote here: "seem to put "breed" of dog rather than breed of dog to denoting that they aren't really one" I interpreted that as a claim the refs were using scare quotes. "Specially denoted" I used to mean "put in the same non-registered category, but listed separately from the standard mixed-breed dog". In other words, that corroborates their status as more than an entirely random mutt but not a breed in any common usage of the word. Anna ^talk 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to clarify it a bit. Better? More awkward? The info box note is less elegant now but I'm not sure it should be removed altogether. Anna ^talk 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to detail. That is much more acceptable and much less misleading :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Anna ^talk 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nature and scope

What is the referent of this article?

At times, it seems to be a story about how, through the cultural practice of favoring certain dogs with handouts, a sort of well-mannered, pleasant-looking "breed" was selected out of the general population of free-ranging dogs.

At other times, it seems to be about any and all free-ranging dogs on the islands. Chrisrus (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Potcake dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008222812/http://www.bekind.org:80/who/ to http://www.bekind.org/who/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Potcake dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150926003526/https://habricentral.org/resources/239/download/Potcakes.pdf?token to https://habricentral.org/resources/239/download/Potcakes.pdf?token

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)