Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pet skunk/archive1

Pet skunk

Self-nom. I nominate this article for:

• Well-rounded coverage of skunk care.
• Logical organization and concise, smooth-flowing prose.
• Good use of images to illustrate points.
• Careful citation of sources.
• Explanation of different points of view where there is controversy.

Nathanlarson32767 01:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support I love this. It's interesting and well-written with lots of information I didn't know previously and it kept me reading through to the end. I would maybe suggest a little bit more factual information on how skunks came to be pets, because the article is a little too focused on skunk care, but that's a minor point, and I accept that skunk care is the major issue. I would also be interested to see something about how and when the scent glands are removed, and why that has to be done i.e. something about skunk smells, because there are lots of countries that have no skunks and lots of Wikiedia readers who've never smelled one. I love the photographs too. Another point: is Skunky Delight a commercial product? If so, would it make sense to name a few other commercial products (rivals) if they exist? Slim 01:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article, I agree it kept my interest till the very end. Could probably stand to have someone proofread and correct minor errors. Perhaps cleanup a bit of the formatting. But thats mostly minor stuff. Alkivar 07:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. (1) TOC and headers need to be streamlined a lot (some sections are tiny) and changed ("Declawing (not recommended)" and use of links). (2) Hate to say it but it's Americocentric - I know they're native to the US but what about them being taken to other countries? (3) some images seem to cause some ugly layout problems. (4) Lead is too short. Interesting article though. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Support violet/riga (t) 09:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, following Nathanlarson32767's improvements. Object. I concur with all of violetriga's comments. The lead section needs serious expansion, images cause some layout problems, article is Americentric (if they're not kept as pets anywhere else, this needs to be noted), and some organization of sections could use some use (some are very short, making the article somewhat choppy). Also, article focuses almost entirely on caring for skunks. However, I'd like to see more comparing and contrasting them to other pets, like cats and dogs. Article does have a good deal of info however, and I found it pretty interesting. Jacob1207 21:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Skunks don't have a whole lot in common with dogs and cats[1]. It would be like comparing a monkey to one of those animals. Nathanlarson32767 18:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I have fixed the layout problems at the top. OvenFresh☺ 01:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Content has been streamlined and layout problems fixed. Nathanlarson32767 09:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - the table setting out legality in each US state, and the list of links to the relevant state legislation, is overwhelming: the table could usefully be redone as a double column (so 25 lines, not 50) and/or the links to the state laws could be incorporated into the table, avoiding up to another 50 lines, like this:

| Arkansas || Illegal || Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Code of Regulations 15.18.

It may even be better to spin this out to a separate page (say, Legality of pet skunks in each US state, and summarise that article here. The list of other references is also extensive, which is good, but part of the art of good references is to pick out the best references. The article seems to refer to virtually any news story or web page that refers to pet skunks: were all of these used as references to write the page? Are, in fact, some just external links, or could some be removed? Finally, there are no paper references - are there none? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, everything listed as a reference corresponds to a footnote in the article. There is one paper reference listed there, "Comprehensive Guide to Raising a Pet Skunk." I agree the table needs work. Thanks for volunteering, Ta bu shi da yu.. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 05:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a good point. I might do that myself! I like the article though. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support, once the table issues are sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - links to state stautes should be in the table, not massed at the bottom. And all the images aren't tagged with a copyright template. Are the GFDL, PD, what? [[User:Neutrality|^talk]] 07:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)