Talk:Pit bull/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SnottyWong talk 14:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article for good article status, and cannot pass it at this time. Technically, the article could be quick-failed under the criteria that there is still a valid cleanup tag within the article (the Famous Owners section). However, since that cleanup tag is relatively minor, and the rest of the article is relatively close to GA status, I will provide a review below. Once the issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAN, or if you disagree with my assessment, feel free to apply for reassessment at WP:GAR.

History

The three subsections under history should each have a {{Main}} tag under their headings, despite the fact that the links are given in the opening sentence of the section.

Fatalities

The fatalities section is confusing. At the top, the article explains at length the reasons why the number of pit-bull-related fatalities is difficult to accurately ascertain. Then, a couple sections down, there is a table that lists the exact number of pit-bull-related fatalities in the US, and what percentage of dog-related fatalities they represent. Which one is right? Is it difficult to ascertain (in which case the table should be deleted or qualified) or are the fatality records reasonably accurate and available, at least in the US (in which case the long list of reasons for why it's difficult to ascertain should be toned down, shortened, or qualified). Also note that the US fatality table has no citation (and definitely needs one).

References

Overall, the article is well-referenced. However, I found a few issues with references that need attention:

• The above-mentioned table on US fatalities.
• This sentence has no source and could be challenged: "Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition."
• The lead and the first sentence of the History section appear to be sourced from the UKC article (reference #1), but there is no citation tag for them. It might be prudent to add a few.
• The talk page seems to indicate a lack of confidence in many of the references given under the Famous Owners section. I'll discuss that whole section later.
• Pro-pitbull enthusiast web sites aren't real sources. (Reference #28)
• Unaffiliated web sites providing information about dog bites are questionable sources, as they appear to be generally biased on one side of the argument or another (i.e., Reference #38, Reference #42).
• Random dog kennel and dog park advertisement websites are not references. (i.e., Reference #56, Reference #68)
• Reference #74 is not even close to a real source.

Population

The population section is extremely short (for a section with a level 2 header), and the only real information it tells us is that the population of pit bulls cannot be reliably determined. Surely these two sentences could be merged into another section of the article?

Famous owners

This is the section with the cleanup tag which asserts that the list is U.S.-centric, which is accurate. That's the first issue with this section. The second issue is that many of the references for this list are being challenged, and rightly so. However, in my personal opinion, the whole section should be deleted outright. Why is any of this information notable? This section is reminiscent of a Trivia or Gossip section, and provides no useful information. It could arguably be useful to have a section describing notable owners in more detail than they are currently described (such as the cases for Michael Vick, Darnell Sanders, Theodore Roosevelt, etc). But, there is no reason to include in the article that Jessica Biel has a pit-bull named "Pooky" who she likes to cuddle with (exaggeration added for effect). The fastest and easiest way to clean up this section would be to wipe it. The harder way would be to pick out the examples that are verifiably notable, and expand upon them. I'll leave that decision for the editors of the article.