This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Cats and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Cats Project‑class | |||||||
|
I have nominated Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Most articles on cat breeds are of poor quality and are mass produced without any bother to check and verify detail making these sites quite unreliable for sourcing pretty much anything. (May as well use the Fancier site as they are just taking information from them, if they're not just throwing a random number around to add in life expectancy and height/weight). I did notice https://www.thesprucepets.com/ when searching and it seems to be of a decent standard considering the state of cat breed articles.
It lists the author of the article and some articles do get reviewed by a qualified veterinarian/veterinary nurse. Some of the list/chart content like friendliness and affection ratings just seem to be made up/unreliable but aside from that the articles seem to be of good quality and they do reference sources. (Usually just Fancier claims).
Just like to know if anyone has thoughts/comments on it's use as a source. Traumnovelle ( talk) 09:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I do see some that have a "Reviewed by" veterinarian link and a "Fact checked by" editor link [2]; those would presumably be better-quality sources, though few of the article have both (e.g. this one [3] lacks the former despite making medical claims), and many have neither (like the one I started with, despite also making medical claims). A handful have the vet review link but not an editor one [4]. One of the site's most frequent writers is this one who claims to be a cat expert with "decades of hands-on experience and intensive research", but is actually an author of a total fluff book about cats and a children's book, both of which seem to have been self-published, aside from the latter which is on Amazon [5]. Nope, even that one is; it's a "Kindle Scribe" e-book (i.e. self-published by an Amazon user). She has no veterinary background, and says she simply took some cat health classes. Her on-site bio's claim "EXPERTISE: Feline Anatomy, Feline Medical Conditions" is not defensible.
Didn't look at other bios, but my rede on this entire site so far is "use only with caution", only with at least the editor-review link, and for medical claims only with a vet review link. But, really, anything of that nature would be better sourced to something from scholar.archive.com, scholar.google.com, or JSTOR or another journal site via The Wikipedia Library. Any material from TSP is bound to be tertiary sourcing at best. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I've relisted Maine Coon for a GA review. 15 years since the initial review and a lot has changed in the article. Traumnovelle ( talk) 23:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the WCF able to establish notability like the CFA, TICA, FIFe, and GCCF? I'm asking due to the York Chocolate article which is a confusing article with unsourced contradictory information about the breed being extinct. I've removed egregious material including a potential malware link but I don't wish to do much more if the article is at risk of being deleted due to lack of notability. Traumnovelle ( talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've come across two breed showcases by the GCCF which plagiarise Wikipedia (Manx and Nebelung), given that can the GCCF be considered reliable for any history related referencing aside from GCCF recognition dates? There's a few articles which use it as a source. Traumnovelle ( talk) 09:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Cats and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Cats Project‑class | |||||||
|
I have nominated Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Most articles on cat breeds are of poor quality and are mass produced without any bother to check and verify detail making these sites quite unreliable for sourcing pretty much anything. (May as well use the Fancier site as they are just taking information from them, if they're not just throwing a random number around to add in life expectancy and height/weight). I did notice https://www.thesprucepets.com/ when searching and it seems to be of a decent standard considering the state of cat breed articles.
It lists the author of the article and some articles do get reviewed by a qualified veterinarian/veterinary nurse. Some of the list/chart content like friendliness and affection ratings just seem to be made up/unreliable but aside from that the articles seem to be of good quality and they do reference sources. (Usually just Fancier claims).
Just like to know if anyone has thoughts/comments on it's use as a source. Traumnovelle ( talk) 09:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I do see some that have a "Reviewed by" veterinarian link and a "Fact checked by" editor link [2]; those would presumably be better-quality sources, though few of the article have both (e.g. this one [3] lacks the former despite making medical claims), and many have neither (like the one I started with, despite also making medical claims). A handful have the vet review link but not an editor one [4]. One of the site's most frequent writers is this one who claims to be a cat expert with "decades of hands-on experience and intensive research", but is actually an author of a total fluff book about cats and a children's book, both of which seem to have been self-published, aside from the latter which is on Amazon [5]. Nope, even that one is; it's a "Kindle Scribe" e-book (i.e. self-published by an Amazon user). She has no veterinary background, and says she simply took some cat health classes. Her on-site bio's claim "EXPERTISE: Feline Anatomy, Feline Medical Conditions" is not defensible.
Didn't look at other bios, but my rede on this entire site so far is "use only with caution", only with at least the editor-review link, and for medical claims only with a vet review link. But, really, anything of that nature would be better sourced to something from scholar.archive.com, scholar.google.com, or JSTOR or another journal site via The Wikipedia Library. Any material from TSP is bound to be tertiary sourcing at best. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I've relisted Maine Coon for a GA review. 15 years since the initial review and a lot has changed in the article. Traumnovelle ( talk) 23:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the WCF able to establish notability like the CFA, TICA, FIFe, and GCCF? I'm asking due to the York Chocolate article which is a confusing article with unsourced contradictory information about the breed being extinct. I've removed egregious material including a potential malware link but I don't wish to do much more if the article is at risk of being deleted due to lack of notability. Traumnovelle ( talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've come across two breed showcases by the GCCF which plagiarise Wikipedia (Manx and Nebelung), given that can the GCCF be considered reliable for any history related referencing aside from GCCF recognition dates? There's a few articles which use it as a source. Traumnovelle ( talk) 09:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)