The Dog collaboration is a coordinated effort by WikiProject Dogs to improve Wikipedia's canine-related content. However, being a member of WikiProject Dogs is not a prerequisite for participation in this collaboration (nor, of course, is participation a requirement for membership in the WikiProject). All Wikipedians, regardless of their level of expertise on the subject, are welcome to contribute.
Aside from the main benefit of creating better canine articles on Wikipedia, it is hoped that the successful execution of this initiative will a) Attract new editors to work on the Project; b) Improve the writing skills of existing editors; and c) Demonstrate the value of collaboration on Wikipedia. Additionally, some large articles may burn out individual editors before they reach Featured status. The ultimate goal of the Dog Collaboration is to get at least one canine or canine-related article featured every couple of months.
Nomination procedure
editAny user may nominate an article to be collaborated upon. Nominees should:
- Be about any dog/fox/wolf or directly canine-related topic.
- Need a significant amount of work in terms of content, organization, prose, etc.
- Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection.
If you would like to nominate an article, please add it at the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think it should be chosen.
For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating an article.
===[[ARTICLE NAME]]===
Nominated by ~~~~
Support:
- (sign with four tildes)
Comments:
- (put your reason for nomination, sign again)
----
For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support an article.
#~~~
Nominations...
editA list of past collaborations can be viewed here.
Please list nominees below using the code laid out in the above section. Newer nominees should be placed on the bottom of the list. Feel free to vote for as many nominees as you wish, but only once per nomination. Please only vote to indicate support, do not vote in the negative. If you like, add a comment in the comment's section under nomination, or on the collaboration talk page. Articles will remain on the list for 3 months, after which time the list will be blanked/refreshed and voting started anew. For the current collaboration, see the template at the top of the page.
The next collaboration will be chosen on March 31, 2013
Nominated by TKK bark ! 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - the article certainly needs to be improved. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Ay! This needs help! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominated by TKK bark ! 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- One of the kennel clubs mentioned in the List of dog breeds, and the article for them looks like this? --TKK bark ! 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominated by öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So close to GA and so much better than when it was delisted; let's get it back up, shall we? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled over the Bull Arab article which was woeful. Classic Aussie Dog. My dog is very vaguely similar so I was curious. I put in a few hours (as you do) rewriting the article and I thought I had improved it. But another editor reverted all my edits which I thought was a fairly extreme position to take. He has some experience but I notice he has a habit of reverts, edit wars and has been blocked at least once. So we have engaged in a bit of a relatively civil discussion on the talk page Talk:Bull Arab. I am certainly not a wikipedia expert, and like many have discovered by way by trial and error. Seems like an extreme position to take. He has reverted all edits on this article repeatedly for years so clearly it is very personal for him. But I have not (strictly speaking) started an edit war. AWHS (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Nominated by TKK bark ! 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Standing list of substantial articles which may be potential FAs or GAs
editHere is a list of substantial articles which could be worked up to GA or FA standard. Generally the content is good with the main focus on formatting, copyediting and referencing. These may require not as much work as others.