Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
So when sometimes says that the country has gone to the dogs, they are right.

Dogs in the United States

(

)

... ~~that in 2010 there were 75 million dogs in the United States, and about 40% of American households had a dog?~~

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

I'm sorry to say that the article has serious drafting and organization problems, and I'm concerned about whether "Dogs in [country]" really justifies a standalone article. Can someone else opine because maybe I'm just being grumpy. EEng (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: Tried to nominate it before the end of 7th day, you should explain your point. Street dogs in Moscow was also a DYK. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This article meets the age and length requirements. The hook fact is cited. Three paragraphs under the "status" section are unsourced. I haven't checked for close paraphrasing issues. Please tell me if you have received more than 5 DYK credits. Ping me when these issues are resolved so that I can continue the review.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: I had reviewed one before and I have contributed in more than 5 DYK. Those 3 paragraphs have been sourced now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:You need to do a QPQ. In the meantime I will check the article for plagiarism and other issues.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not use the 2012 figures for the hook? A large portion of content under the "status" section has been directly lifted from the book Animals and the Law. This needs to be resolved.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: It is not 'directly lifted' at all, there is no copyright or ownership over the law related content, there are numerous sources that have included same information so I have added them too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:The book is copyrighted. Paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7 under the "status" section need to be rewritten so that the there is no violation of copyright laws.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Per WP:COPYVIO, the content must match with other source. I failed to find even 4 straight words that were copied from the other source, but did you found any? You can let me know here, then only it will be considered as copyvio. You seem to be confusing.. You can instead say that the section depends upon single source. For that we use the following tag:-

If you read the description of the book, you would know that, admittedly, book itself copied information from law-related websites or books. I have added them to the article now, after all they are main sources of these information. Consider checking the recent edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I liked the suggestion of using 2012's estimate for hook. It can be:-

Alt1: ... that in 2012 there were 83.3 million dogs in the United States, and about 47% of American households had a dog?

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:The book's description says "Also included are appendixes of animal organizations, cases, statutes and regulations, and an extensive bibliography." The book is copyrighted. You fail to find even 4 straight words but I have checked that several paras are copied or are closely paraphrased. Take, for instance this source. The whole 2nd last para under the "status" section is directly lifted from the book (excluding "a dozen" instead of "twelve"). Your recent edits are fine but I must repeat that there is still striking close paraphrasing to the book Animals and the Law(page- 285-286, pages- 120-121.) I am sure @EEng: would give some useful suggestions to you.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: 100% Wrong. 2nd last paragraph refers to Dog Body, Dog Mind: Exploring Canine Consciousness and Total Well-Being, have you even read the source? So are you going to address that which paragraph or even inform about 4 straight words that were copied from the book? You seem to be repeating the error having no base. Whole article has no word like "dozen", and it includes "twelve" but it is because of the number and it is referring to Dog Body, Dog Mind: Exploring Canine Consciousness and Total Well-Being, though it is 2nd last paragraph. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you were talking about 2nd last paragraph, particularly in size, it was 3rd last. The book source wasn't really required since I had switched to wider applicable source. Rewrote some part too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:The above mentioned issues have been resolved. I have corrected the year in the new hook. The source for the new hook fact should be cited immediately after the hook fact in the article. QPQ has been done but you need to provide the link of the QPQ on this nom page.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Cited and DYK nom was Template:Did you know nominations/Pride parades in South Africa. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hook fact has been cited. Good to go with Alt1.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the level of paraphrasing in this article - in some instances the phrasing and structure is too close to that of its source, which is problematic even if it is not an exact match. I also think the article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:

Done : I guess some of the paragraphs were overlooked, I just rewrote and added more content with sources. Check [1] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyedited too.[2] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Much better, although there are still places where phrasing is a bit close, for example some of what's cited to FN38. There are also instances where the citation given does not appear to support the material it's citing, for example with FN9. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Looks like I missed other source that said about the finalization in 2004, but I have added it and erased some(FN38). Source supported information, but page number was incorrect, fixed it.(FN9) [3] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Still seeing some issues here, for example "Dogs are often regarded as family members, in addition to being highly cherished" vs "dogs are family members and are highly cherished". I suggest going through each source to make sure your content is both correctly cited and adequately paraphrased or quoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Just checked all of them again,[4] replaced and expanded some information. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It's not perfect but I think the paraphrasing is now good enough to pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)