Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pet skunk/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pet skunk

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals. Sandy 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article deals exclusively with pet skunks in the USA. While the lead does specify that the animals are native to the Americas, there is no mention whatsoever about the practice of keeping these animals as pets in other countries round the world. The "Legality" section is especially poor, as it has a long list of American states and their respective legal stances... but makes no mention of how legal keeping skunks is anywhere else in the world! This is en.wikipedia.org (English-speaking world), not usa.wikipedia.org. The article should be re-written to include a WORLD-WIDE view, or it should be de-listed as a featured article. I hope the former - because it is an interesting article, but that will take someone writing who knows about the topic, and is able to find suitable references. Otherwise... de-list. EuroSong talk 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have several issues with this article.

  1. At no point does it state what species of animal is being kept as a pet. Presumably it's a striped skunk, but are hooded, spotted, or hognosed skunks also kept? Does the same information apply? This situation needs to be addressed in the first paragraph.
  2. I tend to not oppose articles on the basis of red links, but the species of skunk that is being kept as a pet (presumably the striped skunk, Mephitis mephitis) doesn't even have an article. The same applies to the genus Mephitis. The previous blue link exists because someone set up a redirect to the family page (and it needs to be speedy-deleted). The skunk pages seem to either receive a lot of attention (Pet skunk and skunk) or are in really bad shape (striped skunk and hooded skunk). Striped skunks are among the most frequently encountered animal in the Eastern US and it's quite a gap in our coverage to not have an article.
  3. I have to assume the statement "Some veterinarians say they are in the hamster family and treat them as such." is a joke added in by a vandal, but it may be an indication that the page has been neglected.
  4. The de-scenting process should be dealt with at the beginning of the article. I had a hard time buying the line: "The amusing thing about baby skunks, however, is as they make their move, they will be looking you straight in the eyes with their two black eyes, while aiming, with tail raised high, their potent "weapon" directly at your eyes simultaneously." Like many of our pet articles it begins to stray pretty close to both how-to and POV.
  5. What are the natural social behaviors of this species and how do they relate to its domestication?
  6. The article discusses the process of owning a skunk in Canada and then says: "Black-and-white skunks are illegal in Canada." Aren't most skunks (of most species) black and white? Is this saying that only brown, white, or other color morphs are allowed? Such color morphs should be discussed earlier in the article. Why are black and whites illegal?

Overall, I'd have to vote to de-list. --Aranae 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When I saw this nomination, my first inclination was that it was nominated for reasons that should be easy enough to fix ourselves. I spent time looking for the original author, who apparently is no longer on Wikipedia. I also spent time yesterday in this article cleaning up the references per WP:FN, and I was troubled by what I found in the article. My impression, based on the very high number of external jumps, was that this is an article written around a link farm, and there are a number of statements that don't appear to be properly referenced. I've done what I can, but this article needs expert help, and its problems may be deeper than appears from the nomination. Sandy 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd also vote to delist. This appears to have been made an FA at a time before WP:NOT stated that Wikipedia should not contain "how-to"s. Much of this article feels like a guide to skunk ownership, which would more suitable for Wikibooks. Following the external links, a fair amount of information seems to come from self-published personal websites, unacceptable per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. This leads to a few pro-pet pov issues. Lines like "Skunks tend to be very friendly, loving, entertaining and playful. However, they can also be stubborn and headstrong." are iffy; we should probably aim to be more scientific in describing the behavior of an animal. Also, under politics, no consideration is given to groups that oppose the ownership of non-domesticated animals for ethical reasons, which is a relatively serious omission. In any case, once all the how-to stuff is stripped out, it will be worth considering whether what's left should be merged with skunk -- most other pet animals have their pet related information adressed as a part of the main article. See also: cat, dog, rabbit, mouse and ferret, to name a few. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Bailey has explained better some of what I found in the article. I'm not sure it's not an AfD, with some salvageable content that could be merged to skunk. Sandy 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I oppose the idea of a merge. Of the examples you give, dog and cat already pertain to the domestic variety so they don't apply. Rabbit isn't merged, it has a separate page for domestic variety that is only summarized in the main article. Same for mouse and fancy mouse. Ferret is the only fairly good example of domesticated information contained within the page for the species and it's long enough that it really should be separated into a new article. Check out guinea pig, hamster, and chinchilla. They're all a mess. Articles about pets tend to get really long, attract how-to and POV editing, and make it frustrating for people who want to read (or write) articles about about the biology of the animal. I think there are only rare cases where articles about the pets should be merged with the wild variety. Secondly, I am not convinced that anything but the striped skunk, Mephitis mephits is kept as a pet. I know the pet skunk article doesn't pertain to Javan Stink Badger or Channel Islands Spotted Skunk. Why would we merge an article about pet striped skunks into the article for its family? Why would information on the care of domestic dogs be found in the Canidae page (along with a list of foxes and maned wolves) or information on care of cats in the Felidae page? If it should be merged (it shouldn't), it should be merged into the nonexistent page for Mephitis mephitis. --Aranae 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this article should be merged, but it does really need a cleanup; it fails the criteria as it stands.--Peta 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Most if not all of the images are problematic. Most of them are tagged as public domain when they are "used by permission of ..." Some of them have accompanying emails where the author gives permission, but 'public domain' is not indicated anywhere. With permission does not equal public domain. Its unclear whether the permission given extends to third parties (if it didn't, they would need to be deleted immediately). The newspaper image is "used by permission" of Jane Bone, but as noted on its talk page, Jane Bone does not own the rights to the image. If by default we treat all the images as fair use, then many can be removed on the grounds that they are used for decorative purposes and that it is possible to create free alternatives. Punctured Bicycle 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are a POV US perspective (2d), focus (5), and comprehensiveness (2b). Marskell 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. No one is working on it, too many problems. Sandy 22:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove fails all criteria of a FA.--Peta 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Not FA quality. Punctured Bicycle 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)