Draft:American Ringtail

• Comment: Just a quick note that I would recommend sourcing the background section and appearance section. I just passed by for cleanup but this would help AfC reviewers when looking at the submission. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Alright, I removed the unreliable source and replaced it with another source (this time from an actual Cattery/reliable source) that had basically the same info. If you notice any other issues you can point them out in another comment, besides that, Thanks!- GalaxyCat1

• Comment: PetGuide is not RS -- the article appears to be written by a freelancer with no qualifications, and the site's "editorial team" has no journalistic or veterinary qualifications either. Catster is better, but might need to be evaluated for NCORP independence. Int. Cat Care looks to be ok; I was not initially impressed with its staff page, which is inexplicably ordered by first name and so begins with about two dozen uncredentialed cat enthusiasts, admins, HR people, business advisers, etc., but eventually I came across some DVMs and people with other relevant doctorates (I did not expect the 24th person on the list, holding the position "Head of Cat Mental Wellbeing", to reveal at the end of the second paragraph of her bio that she has a PhD in cat welfare and spent 8 years as a postdoctoral research scientist!!) so I think it probably does have acceptable expert editorial oversight. Mary Valley Cattery and Hepper are both self-published unreliable sources (and the former is also non-independent) and should not be used. One more independent secondary reliable source with SIGCOV that doesn't just repeat what the other sources say might be enough to meet N, barring special considerations from NCORP if applicable. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've seen your edits to the draft right after you had made them. But usually, I do not re-review a draft I've declined before, hence I've left it for others to review. Still, I'd have reviewed it again, but unfortunately, I'm still doubtful of the draft's sourcing. The blog you added appears to be an unreliable source. And I made some little adjustments to the writing during my first review, but it still needs some rewriting. The behavior section especially, doesn't quite read like a formal encyclopedia-toned statement. For example, it incorporates the use of latex words such as "probably", this type of tone is not great here, it gives a notion that this statement might be dubious. You could also rewrite the earlier lines from that section, such as They have some habits that may be remnants of their genes, maybe even dating back to Solomon, these habits include hiding their food and once they have finished eating, they will sometimes attempt to bury their food. Instead like this They manifest certain behavioral patterns that are speculated to be evolutionary remnants, potentially tracing back to antiquity, including the tendency to conceal their food and engage in postprandial attempts at burying it. X (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Albeit your disclaimer/notice in the draft, I'm declining this draft for now. This is procedural as unreviewed drafts add to our backlog. Feel free to resubmit again once the mentioned issues are fixed (from my previous message). X (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Hey, thanks for creating the draft. I've fixed several citations and copy edit-related errors. The article's writing is okay and encyclopedic, so kudos for that. However, there are still some sourcing issues. We need sources from reliable publications. Some of the sources you used aren't reliable, such as source 4, "Articles Factory". There's a good source tho, such as source 2, Catster. This is a notable magazine with editorial practices and these types of sources are generally considered reliable. Could you omit the unreliable source and introduce better sources? As it stands, we still need at least 1/2 more good sources for it to pass our General Notability Guideline. See WP:GNG. X (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

American Ringtail
Other names	Ringtail Sing-a-Ling
Origin	Northern California
Breed standards
TICA	standard
Domestic cat (Felis catus)

American Ringtails are a breed of domestic cat, mostly recognized for their curly, ring-shaped tail.

Background

In 1998 a woman named Susan Manley "discovered" the Ringtails when she found Solomon as a two-day-old kitten. She bottle-fed him and he started to grow. Around the four-weeks-old-mark she noticed he had an unusually curly tail, so she took him to a veterinarian to investigate. The veterinarian said that Solomon was healthy and that no medical issue had caused the curly tail. One year later in 1999 she decided to breed this new ring-tailed cat. A few years later in 2005 she partnered up with a few breeders and the ring-tailed cats were bred with Domestic Shorthairs, a well-known and common cat.

Description

Appearance

American Ringtails are a medium to large breed of cat. They weigh around 7-15 pounds and are 8-10 inches tall, almost a foot.

Coat Colors

American Ringtails have been bred with many different cats, including purebreds and American Shorthairs so they can come in many different colors and patterns.

Tail

American Ringtails have an unusually curly tail, they have this because of a genetic mutation that was most likely present in Solomon, the first cat in Susan Manley's breeding program.

Behavior

American Ringtails are observed to be social. They have some habits that may be remnants of their genes, maybe even dating back to Solomon, these habits include hiding their food and once they have finished eating, they will sometimes attempt to bury their food. When talking to an American Ringtail, they tend to emit trilling noises, probably as a way of communicating back or showing their love.