Talk:Ayrshire cattle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tortle (talk · contribs) 04:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I marked this as a Good Article but I would like to see additional pictures. I let it go though because that is not a criteria and it seems hard to find good pictures for this article. I did have to fix quite a bit of grammar though but now it is well written and deserving of GA status. Tortle (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion at WT:GAN#Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor, where this was one of five articles opened for review by Tortle and one of three quick approvals, Tortle is going to stay away from GA, and we will be reverting all of his approvals and halting his reviews in process, and returning them all to the reviewing pool. That unfortunately includes this one. However, it will give more time for improvement to the article, which does have prose issues even after the above edits (not all of which managed to improve the prose).

Note to nominator TheMagikCow: this would be an excellent opportunity for you to work on the prose and also on broadening the article. You might want to check with Cassianto for ideas on what to do, since Cassianto gave the opinion that this is currently a C-level article, which means significant work will be needed to reach GA level. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For a start, I don't feel it's comprehensive enough, and I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there that cover this species. The infobox is a joke; seriously, do we need to be told a cow is used for dairy?

• Prose like:
  • "The Ayrshire is considered a native breed from Ayrshire, Scotland."

Fixed: is considered -> are

• • "However, the breed is thought to have originated in Holland." by who?

By cattle historians: added into article.

• • Holland is over linked;

UNsure about this. Holland is only appearing once.

WP:OVERLINK says: "Specifically, unless they are particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions." Cassianto^Talk 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• • "In 1814, the cattle were first recognised by the Highland and Agricultural Society" has an American comma, but it's a UK article;

Listed at GOCE.

• • "Ayrshire cattle first came to America in 1822 and were taken mainly to Connecticut and to some other various parts of New England" -- Did they get the bus to America, or boat, or taxi? I would've thought that they were brought to America?

Changed to brought.

• • "Today, the cattle is in many areas of America, including New York state and Pennsylvania." -- paragraphs should end with a citation.

Sourced.

• • The Ayrshire is regarded as a medium sized breed of cattle" -- by who?

BY breed associations. In article.

• • "the bull will weigh approximately 635-900 kilograms and the cow will weigh about 450-600 kilogrammes. -- Caps?

Fixed. Not an expert on grammar so listed at GOCE.

• • Color is AmEng and not BrEng

Fixed.

• • Why is their birth and horns mentioned in a "Characterisation" section?

Recognised as a characteristic.

Horns maybe, but birth? Surely that's not a characteristic? I was born, but that doesn't form part of my character. Cassianto^Talk 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you really wat to set yourself out from the crowd at GA, I would have a bit about their etymology and taxonomy under those headings. Presumably, of course, it can be found out. Cassianto^Talk 09:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This, I'm afraid, is just for starters. Cassianto^Talk 21:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For comprehensiveness, look and some of the other cattle GAs that I have promoted; Belted Galloway. From a perspective of the infobox, the section on use is there and has been agreed by us at WP:FARM. If you would like to see it changed, start a RfC. Many of the other sources online repeat the same content, but I will have another check. Thank you very much for this input and I will being to act upon it User:Cassianto. TheMagikCow (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Infoboxes are neither prohibited nor required": that comes from the MoS which overrides any project. I'm not getting in to a whole IB dispute, and I couldn't really care if you choose to keep this one in place, but certain types of information in the current box illustrates exactly why some IBs are worthless rubbish. I won't be opening an RfC as in my experience, they just invite the wrong types of people. In terms of comparing it with another of your GA cow articles; the other is certainly better, but even that I would have said wasn't long enough. Everyone's different I suppose and this is a purely subjective view. My grievance would be with the reviewer as he/she has certainly done you no favours by promoting this to GA when it's clearly not. Cassianto^Talk 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, just to clarify: the article is not listed as a GA. All of Tortle's actions at GA were reverted, including the promotion of this article. At the moment, this article is back in the GAN pool and awaiting a new reviewer; your comments above will doubtless help TheMagikCow improve the article in advance of the eventual new review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know BlueMoonset. Tortle seems like a rogue reviewer whose only interest is to get their GA review numbers up, and so speedily passes articles in order to accomplish this. Anyway, I agree with the reverts in that respect. I was happy to work with the nominator of this article to try and get it off the ground as I felt sorry for them having had their time wasted by Tortle in the first place. Rather disappointingly, I now see, and despite my offer of help, including comments above, the nominator has taken it upon themselves to list the article at the Guildhall of Copy Editors page which, if I'm honest, has pissed me off as I was willing to undertake this myself. Before I saw this I asked our resident animal expert DrChrissy if they could help out. I wish I hadn't of bothered now...(although it was nice meeting them ;)) Cassianto^Talk 15:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for any damage that I have caused, I hope that you can understand that I edit in good faith and give my apologies. I hope we can meet again around some better circumstances. Thanks Tortle (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All I ask Tortle is that you familiarise yourself with what exactly a Good Article should be. You can do this by visiting the GA homepage. There is no "damage" in this case, so I wouldn't beat yourself up about it. Cassianto^Talk 15:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I read that and worked on and nominated Lego. See you around. Tortle (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for annoying you cassianto. I was just not thinking! Thanks for the help and the article is looking much better now. How would it swing at GA now? TheMagikCow (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That's OK; in fact, it was a good thing as we have now recruited Biblioworm to oversee copy editing duties. He is doing a fantastic job and you're very lucky to have someone like him on board. I don't think the article's ready yet. And i don't think it will be for a week or so, but that generally hinges on you and how quick you are to check sources that Biblioworm, DrChrissy and I don't have access to. If you're on the ball, we might have it done before then, who knows? Cassianto^Talk 10:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.