Talk:Ayrshire cattle/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

I think that it is about finding what is notable and what can be sourced. Limousin cattle has a whole section about the significance of the herd book, for example, but no such significance exists here. Look at Belted Galloway. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPA stuff is normally explained with "IPA" and in parentheses.
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "average adult Ayrshire cow weighs 450 to 600 kilograms (990–1,320 lb)" main: "The average adult individual weighs more than 1,200 lb (540 kg).[8]" should be consistent.
Made consistent with source. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are now desired traits of easy" reads odd to me.
Fixed. No expert on grammar, so please feel free to change it. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox says distribution is worldwide yet the population section only mentions the UK and the US.
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foraging is mentioned in the infobox but not in the text.
  • "Which strains of cattle were crossbred..." poorly written.
  • " in length.Due" space required.
Added space. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their milk production can reach 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) or greater per lactation" 9.1 tons of milk per lactation? I don't think so.
Per annum. Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add publishers or works to all references, and be consistent with the date formats used.
  • US Ayrshire or USA Ayrshire? And US or U.S.?
Using U.S. as it stays true to the source. Charity is registered as U.S. as well. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "63,356 cattle were registered" clarify that this is Ayrshire cattle.
Yes! All clarified! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to be done here in order to bring this up to the standard required to cover the bases for GA, so I'll put it on hold for a week in the hope that some progress can be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • TheMagikCow, why have you nominated this for GA while its undergoing improvements? CassiantoTalk 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cass, I think this was nominated back in June. It needs some real hard work to get it up to level of the other, similar cattle articles that I've seen, despite the quick changes made above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers RM. Another reviewer tried to quickly pass it the other day and in a worse state than it is in now, believe it or not. I took umbrage at this as it was certainly not fit for a C-class, let alone a GA. The reviewer was bollocked and feeling sorry for MagikCow, I advised him/her on the talk page about what to do next. I even offered to help with regards to prose, layout etc, which I have been trying to do. As I'm not familiar with cows or cattle - not since my nightclubbing days anyway ;) - I enlisted DrChrissy to help. Simultaneous to this, MagikCow requested help at the Guild of Copy Editors page and Biblioworm popped along to muck in. As far as I knew, DrChrissy, Biblioworm and I were trying to fix things. MagikCow decided to ignore our improvements and went ahead and nominated it at GAN; he sought no advice with regards to its new review here; if he/she had of done, I would have told them not to. The nominator, I feel, is desperate to have this pass GA, but he really needs to be patient. MagikCow, if you're reading this, listing it again here in this condition was a foolish thing to do. Please be patient. CassiantoTalk 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has this article been submitted for GA again? If it has, this is very premature in my opinion.DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never re nominated it. Cassianto reverted the review by another inexperienced editor and left the nomination standing. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reverted the review? No, I opposed the articles promotion because it was rubbish. My colleagues and I don't want to see this fail, so we are putting the effort into doing what should've been done the first time. If this wasn't renominated, why is the header "GA2"? CassiantoTalk 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cassianto, I was the one who reverted the original review/promotion as part of a massive cleanup of the inexperienced editor who wreaked havoc overnight—17 GANs, 5 reviews including 3 immediate promotions, one of which was this article, and which I undid. TheMagikCow had nothing to do with this restoration, which reverted the nomination to status quo ante: an ordinary GAN. It is GA2 because we needed to leave the GA1 in place to show what the original reviewer did; this is similar to what happens when a GA1 is abandoned and the nomination needs to be put back into the reviewing pool with its original seniority to find a new reviewer, but there are existing comments from the incomplete review. (Only if the review was opened and there were no comments do we have the GA1 page deleted and start over at GA1.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • BlueMoonset, that's understood, thanks for clearing that up (and the mess left behind), much appreciated. CassiantoTalk 15:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the weight of opposition to this nomination, I'm inclined to fail it right now, pending updates. Any comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if you could point out sections that need improvements, compare it to other cattle GAs, look at Belted Galloway. See my comment on the first point. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out two GAs already which would serve as useful templates for what to expect. The Belted Galloway article is weak and I'm surprised it's a GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheMagikCow perhaps you might consider that getting an article to GA should not be the goal of your editing efforts. (Please note this is not a back-handed comment on your ability, simply a comment on your motivation) Sure, make the article as good as you can, but it might be that the information simply isn't there to make it a GA (I think this might be the case for the Ayrshire). I personally have never nominated an article for GA. Early in my editing of animal articles I saw some of the comments or suggestions in a GA review and I thought they were so ridiculous, they were totally wasted on the average reader and a waste of editor's time. My own daily motivation for editing is to always leave an article better than I found it, but not with the aim of raising it to GA...although that may happen later. I hope this helps.DrChrissy (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd shelve this review The Rambling Man as it needs a lot of work, more than the time limits for GAN would allow. I'm buggered if I'm letting this follow in the footsteps of the Belted Galloway article, so pray continue with its overhaul everyone. CassiantoTalk 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion this article is not eligible for GA, since it is quite unstable. Stability is a requirement for GA nominees... --Biblioworm 15:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case I think I'll fail it for now. Good luck with future improvements. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayrshire_cattle/GA2&oldid=1079604597"