Talk:Japanese Spitz

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)

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)

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

• 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:

• http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/japanesespitz.htm
• http://www.dogsgossip.com/japanese-spitz.html
• http://www.justusdogs.com.au/flex/japanese-spitz/601/1

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

• 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)

Bad Source

Source number six, the breed standard, is cited in the explanation of the history of the breed. I am trying to figure out why, as it does not appear to explain much about the history of the breed, never mind the specific facts it's being cited for. I wanted to send out a notice quickly to see if someone could explain it to me, but if there is neither explanation nor action to remedy the situation, then I plan to remove it and insert citations where I can and citation needed tags where I can't. Reinana kyuu (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japanese Spitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528031029/http://the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=4167 to http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=4167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231010130/http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/262gb99_en.doc to http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/262gb99_en.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329215535/http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=192 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=192

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)