User talk:Mcrobertson/sandbox

Mallory Brown: peer review

A lead section that is easy to understand

I feel the lead is more satisfying after reading the entire article, though it does a good job of summarizing important points when it is examined alone. However, the topic of domestication changing society is mentioned in the lead and then not discussed in the article. The lead is nicely balanced and not at all redundant I feel, but it could possibly mention the size change in dogs leading to domestication since it is mentioned a couple of times later in the article (though this is not a major point and it is fine without it).

A clear structure

The structure is clear and I can't think of a way to better present it. Good job.

Balanced coverage

Each section is approximately the same length which I think is fair as all portions seem to be equally important and no sections appear to be unnecessary or off-topic. I like the inclusion of the five criteria that lead to domestication, but is it possible that anyone else has a different perspective on what criteria lead to domestication? If so, these viewpoints should be added. The article does do a good job of remaining neutral and not trying to convince the reader of anything.

Neutral content

I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author while reading the article. The closest thing to being biased is the statement about the man who was buried with the dog, but even that feels relevant to show our relationship to dogs. I did not notice any words or phrases that were not neutral. The article does reference what archaeologists say without naming an explicit archaeologist, but I think this is fine. The info on dogs does seem to all be neutral or good, so if there is anything bad that you know of it couldn't hurt to throw that in, but if not I think it is okay.

Reliable sources Most statements do seem to be contributed to a reliable source, and no source is overused--the sources are diverse. There are a few statements in the lead that are unattributed though (domestication and society). I can't check the actual sources, but the info here due to the way they are currently cited but it would be hard to misrepresent I feel.

Nate Wasylk: Peer Review

A lead section that is easy to understand

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead section introduces the topic well and gives a lot of clarifying information and history about the dog fossils that have been the baseline for the research being performed.

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The most important information is reflected well in the lead and the flow of the article afterwards is quite logical. I would say to maybe include the origin of the canids in the second paragraph to the first paragraph so the article has a more chronological flow throughout.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead gives equal weight to many different components related to dogs and the importance of understanding their history related to humans to understand the origin of the behaviors they display currently.

4. Is anything missing? The sources included should be included in a reference section. Refer to the citing sources tutorial for more assistance!

5. Is anything redundant? The lead flows well with new information being provided in each sentence. Remember to include sources after every sentence that is not common knowledge!

A clear structure

6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? I would consider elements of the leading sentences in both the second and third paragraphs to be stated in the first paragraph. This would relate the different elements of both paragraphs in a more consistent chronological fashion.

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Consider incorporating information in the second and third paragraphs into the first paragraph instead so that the information is presented from the most ancient fossils to the more recently dated fossils.

Balanced coverage

8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Each section is relatively similar in content. Consider maybe including more about the origin of humans and dogs interacting with each other and the importance it had on the humans at the time.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? The information included seems quite necessary. Be careful about redundant sentences!

10. Is anything off-topic? Consider using internal links to define such terms as "carnissials" opposed to defining it in the article.

11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? The article draws from a variety of sources that bring many useful aspects of the history of dog fossils to the forefront of the article.

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The only viewpoint I can see that may be glossed over slightly is the the interaction between humans and dogs throughout history.

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The article contains a very neutral point of view throughout. The reader does not feel as if the author is attempting to persuade them either way.

Neutral content

14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? The perspective is quite difficult to guess based off the neutral tone implemented by the author.

15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No non-neutral phrases stick out while reading the article. However, consider revising and adding commas when necessary along with less wordy phrases in different sections.

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." The article does a good job of laying out exactly who to contribute specific information to. Consider using less wordy explanations when saying where sources come from if possible.

17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article maintains a focus on merely presenting the information without interpreting the facts in a way that persuades the reader negatively or positively.

Reliable sources

18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The sources seem to be reliable. Including a reference section will allow the reader to be sure the sources are in fact reliable.

19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. The sources are all spread throughout the article. Consider citing more information that may not be common knowledge to the everyday reader.

20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Make sure to cite using the cite button at the top of the page and follow the manual addition steps in order to have the necessary works cited. Make sure to scroll down to the bottom of the page to add extra authors to a paper.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natewasylk (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC) 

Peer Review Responses

Mallory and Nate, Thank you so much for your time and input, I made addition changes to my sources and removed information that you guys deemed misleading in the beginning paragraph. I am glad you guys found my content neutral and interesting. I added commas, headings, my sources through wikipedia. I added a picture of my dog and I for additional character. I am glad you guys found my content organized and unbiased. In additon, Nate, I also took away some of the "wordiness". Mallory, I added internal links in order to help others understand larger terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrobertson (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on suitability as an article

Mcrobertson, I'm sorry to say that this is not going to work as a standalone article. What you have created here is, in effect, a summary of the content of that book. However, for the book per se to be the subject of an article, it needs to satisfy a number of criteria, the most important of which is that it must "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word - i.e., it must have received substantial attention and coverage in indepedent sources. The specific guidelines for book notability are listed here. I'm not seeing these fulfilled for this book, and have therefore nominated the existing fractional article (stub) for deletion. Please feel free to participate in that discussion.

Your text here does nothing to show the book's notability, I'm sorry to say. As such it is unsuitable as a separate Wikipedia article. Since you have concentrated on summarizing the contents, I would advise to rather try to integrate this material into Wikipedia's existing coverage of the evolution of canines; the majority of that seems to be located at Canidae#Evolution. I do suspect, however, that much or all of your material is already covered there (not least because the book is cited as a source twice in that article!). I suggest you check up on this existing stuff and see what additions you can make. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mcrobertson, I have withdrawn the deletion nomination because two in-depth reviews have been found - that is enough to satisfy the notability requirements, and the article is therefore likely to be retained. - However, I'm afraid that does not change the unsuitability of your new material for inclusion. In essence, you are just recreating some material that is already covered at Canidae#Evolution. This is not a unique content of this book, and could be applied to every book on canine evolution; hence it should not feature in an article on any of them. If you can summarize what is particular to this book (i.e., as mentioned in the stub, that it provides especially good coverage of Chinese canids), that would be useful, but merely summarizing content that is already included elsewhere is not. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Mcrobertson, since you have elected to completely ignore everything I wrote above, I have had to revert your additions to Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History. Let me clarify once again: your material is unsuitable for an article about that book because it is entirely concerned with summarizing information that is not specific to that book. What you have produced is a duplication of material already covered at Canidae#Evolution and various sub- and related pages. What would be needed to expand the article is material that covers content that is unique to that book, and information that is specifically about the book's conception, structure and reception (you can see that the few sentences already there do a little of that). This is not the place for another summary of canidae evolution - we already have those.

(Now please don't just insert your stuff into the article again until this has been discussed and sorted out - that would be WP:Edit warring, and is frowned upon mightily.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)