Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Japanese Spitz/1

Japanese Spitz

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus is to delist due to article failing criteria 1(b) (prose quality), 3(a) (broad coverage), and 2(b) (referencing). SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not follow the standard format for a dog breed article - being sections on History, Description, Temperament, Health (as a minimum). In appearance/size variations and in history, there are large uncited sections of text. I also do not think that the current history section is complete and needs to be fleshed out; and finally the references are using a variety of formatting with missing dates etc. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the main contributor and original nominator to comment here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. In addition to what Miyagawa has commented on, there are questionable, unreferenced claims throughout the article including:

"coat has a non-stick texture often described as being similar to Teflon"
"and is a popular pet" (where?)
"they are brave and consider it their duty to protect their family" (something this subjective needs a citation to a high-quality source)
"They are a very clean dog and do not have a doggy odor, due to the texture of their coat mud and dirt fall off or can be brushed out very easily." (run-on sentence too(!))

Overly general statements are included -- all puppies have itchy gums, for example, not just Japanese Spitz -- and dubious web pages are cited:

There are three others sources that are passable if not ideal. – anna 08:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist/Demote. The article is clearly falling short of Good Article Criteria Part 2b "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" As per Anna's comments above. I also don't believe it covers the topic deeply enough to be considered to be of good article status (eg: lack of references, lack of health information). There are some sections that are far too short, eg, care and "mortality". Keetanii (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]