Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Giant Schnauzer/1

Giant Schnauzer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article relies on a self-published source for several claims Traumnovelle (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Kennel Club is recognized as the most influential purebred dog registry, and both acknowledges the work by Catherine Brown and publishes the breed standard, which should make them the foremost experts on Giant Schnauzers. I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such. Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs of this reassessment by using the following template: {{subst:GARMessage/''Giant Schnauzer''/''1''}} Recon rabbit 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the wrong part. Obviously the American Kennel Club are fine to use for the breed standard and registration figures per WP:ABOUTSELF, when it comes to stuff like history they shouldn't be used in a good article. Fanciers do not always accurately represent the history of a breed.

>I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such

They're not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject which is an obvious issue in regards to many claims.

>Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs

There's notification via the article alert which automatically lists articles undergoing a GAR. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I will admit that my area of knowledge is more in rabbit breeds, so my question here is - who else is going to document the history of a breed than a fancier group? I will do a search for independent sources on this topic but I fear they will not be as comprehensive or will be drawing from the same documents.

On the notification - I forgot about article alerts. Some reviewers like AirshipJungleman will still post notifications on the talk page. Recon rabbit 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cynologists, there are independent people writing about the history of dog breeds - they may rely on fanciers for information but they are hopefully critical of it, compare information with historical evidence, and go through a publishing and review process. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, the GAR instructions require notifications to be sent to involved WikiProjects and major contributors. As noted in the instructions, {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ is an easy notification method. Article alerts are not considered sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle notified WP:Dogs, I added a notification to WP:Germany. On content, the Temperament section could use a bit of copyediting, it reads very disjointedly. Is it suspicious of strangers or accepting of novel people! CMD (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.