Did you know nomination

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 asthis nomination's talk page,the article's talk page orWikipedia 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 byAirshipJungleman29 talk 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that theFive Domains model is frequently used when determining whethereuthanasia is appropriate in animals?

• • Reviewed: none

CoconutOctopustalk20:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Article is new enough, long enough, and within policy. No copyright violations detected. I do have two issues to raise. The first is the title. The term "five domains" is very generic, and I don't think the article should remain at this title. There are other concepts in published academic literature that use the term "five domains" like the "five domains of athletic training", the "five domains of social determinants of health", or the "five domains of child development" to name just a few. I would strongly suggest moving the article to something like theFive Domains Model for Animal Welfare because it is clear and is not likely to be confused with other concepts which use the terminology "five domains".

The second issue is with the verification of the hook. Currently, the hook is not directly stated in the body of the article with an inline citation following the fact as required by our policy atWP:DYKCRIT. There is similar language but not exactly the same. There is no statement in the article saying that the FDM model is frequently used in the context of euthanasia decisions. The lead statement does say that the model has been "widely adopted and endorsed" but that fact is not supported in the body of the article with inline citations. You must be careful to not draw conclusions in the lead that are not stated in the body with supporting sources. Mellor, does not address the frequency of use of the FDM model, and the quote in question is only saying the model "could be informative with regard to end-of-life decision-making", not that it is frequently used in questions involving the euthanasia in animals. In looking at Mellor, that source doesn't address the frequent use of the model anywhere. That said, Hampton, Hemsworth, et. al does state the model is frequently used in evaluating animal welfare, but does not address the issue of euthanasia. So here we have an original conclusion in the hook not found in any one source and not stated in the article. This is both aWP:SYNTH/WP:VERIFICATION problem. PerWP:DYKCRIT policy, we need a new hook fact that is directly stated in the article, and verified to a source that has the same fact/content in it. That source should be cited directly after the sentence with the hook fact.

Please propose new hooks below for me to review and ping me when ready. Make sure the hook fact is stated directly in the article with an inline citation immediately following. The fact must not contain original analysis or conclusions through a synthesis of sources. Also double check that all statements/facts/conclusions in the lead are in the body with citations, and that all conclusions directly match conclusions made in a source. There should be no original conclusions in the lead or body that can't be directly found in a single source. Best.4meter4 (talk)17:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the lead issues you identified, and have a new hook which I'll place below that I believe meets the criteria! I disagree with the page renaming - the five domains model is widely called just that, and is the primary topic found when "five domains" is searched on a regular or a scholar search, and by far the most common usage of the term. I also think it is a much more concise and relevant title to searches.

@4meter4: courtesy pingCoconutOctopustalk19:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new hook:

• ALT1: ... that theFive Domains model of animal welfare seeks to ensure animals have a "life worth living"?

Mellor, David (14 March 2016). "Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living"". Animals. 6 (3): 21. doi:10.3390/ani6030021. PMC 4810049. PMID 27102171.

• ALT2: ... that theWorld Association of Zoos and Aquaria suggests thefive domains model be used when measuring animal welfare in zoos?

Mellor, David J. "Caring for Wildlife" (PDF). World Association for Zoos and Aquaria.

I don't feel comfortable promoting this to the main page because the title is likely to be challenged in my opinion. The term "domain" as a concept is used across the sciences and education praxis in a variety of conceptual frameworks, and having "five domains" isn't unique to this one specific model. "Five domains" isn't a clearly definable term in my opinion. I note the topic is given in some publications as the Five Domains Model (such ashttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/8/60) as a three word proper name. Others lowercase the m (such ashttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/extending-the-five-domains-model-for-animal-welfare-assessment-to-incorporate-positive-welfare-states/867B8AB2C3D6CA25A35B54C0311ECD57) but almost every paper title includes the phrase "Five Domains Model/model" as a consistent way of referring to the concept, and most often it is first introduced in paper titling with the words animal welfare. Additionally, pretty much every source capitalizes the D in Five Domains (including the RSPCA sitehttps://www.rspcaqld.org.au/blog/animal-welfare/the-five-domains and the many journals used in the article). The wikipedia article should not have a lowercase d, and I would oppose a redirect with a lowercase because Five domains is a generic name that can refer to any fivedomains; whereas "Five Domains" is a proper name of the model. At the very least I think the additional word model should be added to the wikipedia article's title in addition to capitalizing the d/D in Five Domains. As I am opposed to the current article title, I am calling for a second opinion.4meter4 (talk)00:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know that it's a valid reason to hold up DYK, but yeah, it's poorly named. I suggestFive domains model, which I see is already a redirect. See alsoWikipedia:Article titles.RoySmith(talk)01:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith The D is capitalized in the literature. It should beFive Domains model. To be clear Five Domains is the proper name of the model. Using lowercase letters is a grammatical error. It would be like calling theWhite House (the official residence of the US President) the white house (which could mean any white house). They are two different things. An obvious grammar issue like this would end up atWP:ERRORS and the hook would be pulled. If we see a likely disputable problem we don't promote articles as they are likely to be unstable.4meter4 (talk)01:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've beenWP:BOLD and moved the article to that title. I'll let another editor take over the review from here.4meter4 (talk)01:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoconutOctopus: Neither of the last two hooks check out; the world association sentence in the article doesn't include the phrase 'in zoos' and the life worth living hook doesn't appear in the article at all.--Launchballer12:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Sorry for the few days late reply, but the life worth living hook does appear in the article? "The model is designed to help ensure that animals have a "life [that is] worth living", and are not simply having their basic survival needs met."CoconutOctopustalk12:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"life worth living" is not the same as "life [that is] worth living".--Launchballer13:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I've removed the "[that is]", your thoughts now?CoconutOctopustalk13:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me.--Launchballer13:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]