Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marquesan Dog/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 [1].

Marquesan Dog

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure variation of the domestic Polynesian Dog from the Marquesas Islands. It's also an important look at the cultural significance of the native dogs and later dogs to the Marquesan people. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

Was this translated from the German Wikipedia?

No the article was translated into German. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link totem in lead
Serving as a tribal totems and religious symbols – "a" too much?
they were sometimes consumed as meat although less frequently than in other parts of the Pacific because of their scarcity. – this would mean the breed was widespread in Polynesia? Is "they" referring to dogs instead?
Modern dog population on the island are – populations?
Millerstrom noted that a majority of dog petroglyphs – a majority of what? Or do you mean "the majority"?
Linguistic – Linguistics?
They were totem animals associated with the Nakiʻi tribe. – Needs background and clarification. The sentence reads as all Marquesan Dogs are associated with this tribe?
The "Characteristics" section is a bit poor. Isn't there anything known from the bones that have been found? Not even the size?
The citation in the "Characteristics" section needs explanation. What is the "early post-contact dog"? Could the Marquesans of the past have forgotten what the dog looked like or did it matter how they depicted the dog – Does that mean that the stone carvings were made after the dog became extinct?
the first tiki was a megalithic stone head – the oldest tiki or the first discovered? If the latter, why use past (was)?
who is believed to have carved both statues – only one was mentioned. Or do you mean "both statues and tikis"? But then, what is the difference between the two?
He was informed that – who is "he"? Still von den Steinen? Who informed him?
Only one of the dog carving – carvings?
The second statue – when discovered, and by whom?
Only two carvings are mentioned; these cannot be the only ones?
link "canine"
article contains both British and American English
roles of dog – dogs?
"found guilty of sheep stealing about the year 1797 and was banished for the above crime" – citation needs attribution.
with a local ruler Keattonnue – "with the local ruler"?
another American Captain Brinell – similar language problem to the above point.
in her 2003 paper "Facts and Fantasies: the Archaeology of the Marquesan Dog". – I would not give the title of a paper in the text; this is non-standard in Wikipedia.

All in all, the article does not appear to meet FA standards yet. Prose issues will be easy to fix, but there appear to be larger omissions in content (e.g., the petroglyphs are completely lacking from the "Archaeological evidence"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn

Very interesting.

At first glance, the lead feels a little short. For example, it has no discussion of the breed's appearance, and no reference in the lead to at least some of the sections in the article (e.g., on language).
Do we capitalise breed names? I.e., why "Marquesan Dog" and not "Marquesan dog"?
"Similar to other strains of Polynesian dogs, it was introduced to the Marquesas by the ancestors of the Polynesian people during their migrations. Serving as a tribal totems and religious symbols, they were sometimes consumed as meat although less frequently than in other parts of the Pacific because of their scarcity. These native dogs are thought to have become extinct before the arrival of Europeans, who did not record their presence on the islands." This is not clear writing. You keep switching (grammatical) subject, making it tricky to follow who or what is being talked about.
Is it normal to start an article on a dog breed with a section entitled "Linguistic"? It's honestly not clear to me what purpose it serves.
"although pero was an alternative for dog (kurī) in the related Māori language" Is it not any more?
"They were introduced to the Marquesan Islands by the original Polynesian settlers" When?
"The dog is thought to have become extinct prior to the arrival of Spanish explorers in 1595, although some might have survived beyond this point.[5][6][7][8][9] No European accounts were ever written about them. They were thought to be fairly rare and "never numerous in the islands" even before the arrival of Europeans." Again, this doesn't strike me as clear writing. It's a little weaselly (note the passive voice!) and doesn't flow all that well.
"Many petroglyphs or carved images of dogs were found near religious centers and chiefly residential areas indicating their venerated status and importance in the culture" Vague.
"wondered if they were meant to be realistic." Informal
General comment: Don't be scared of redlinks. I wonder if there are a few wikilinks missing where they would be appropriate because we don't have articles on the subject?
"There are disagreements[note 1] if the statue should be set in the reclining position as it was discovered or the prone position as it is currently displayed." Grammar.
"its original spot" Informal.
"In 1956, Norwegian adventurer and ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl later claimed the reliefs on Tiki Makiʻi Tauʻa Pepe were llamas or pumas instead to bolster his theory that Polynesia was settled from South America." Grammar; you don't need later and a year.
"Later unidentified writers and rumors have insinuated that Heyerdahl deliberately altered and defaced the images in his process of restoring them." You make it sound like you're reporting gossip.
"many dog bone fragments and one dog burial across a few sites" Vague.
"Millerstrom summarized these earlier findings and personally analyzed many of the petroglyphs of dogs left by the prehistoric Polynesians in her 2003 paper "Facts and Fantasies: the Archaeology of the Marquesan Dog". She noted that further research needs to be done on the linguistic evidence tracing the movement of dogs within Oceania, the socio-economic roles of dog in Marquesan and Oceanian cultures, and a study into the morphology of the bones and dog burials found in the Marquesan archaeology sites." I don't feel that you're really telling me much, here. Tell us about this analysis!
"Dogs of different breeds were later reintroduced by European settlers and visitors to the Marquesas." Later than what?
"the Marquesans attempted to steal one of the small dogs on their ships" Unclear. What's the significance of the ship?
"Anthropologist Katharine Luomala noted that nothing suggested that these dogs were left by the Spanish." What dogs? Or am I misunderstanding? Generally, this section could be much smoother. It seems to just become a list of mentions of dogs on the island.

Oppose. Based on this first reading, I get the impression that this article is not FA-ready. Sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As two reviewers have expressed concerns, and the nominator does not appear to have replied for some time, I will be archiving this shortly. Sarastro (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.