Talk:Goat

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Started review

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written. Covers multiple topics including history, breeding, uses and the role of goats in religion. Goes deep enough without being inaccessible to a broad audience.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fully complies. Similar layout and prose style to other agriculture related, and agri adjacent, articles which have been reviewed and accepted as GA. It is worth noting that the nominator already has a substantial body of work accepted at GA.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Confirmed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some references required fixes. This was done during the review process (see the comments below). Considering there are 98 cites having a few to fix is not unexpected, nominator and reviewer worked through these amicably. Most web articles are backed-up with archives at the Wayback Machine or similar. While not a requirement for GA, it is good to see as it will reduce maintenance workload in the longer term.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers taxonomy, history, breeding, uses, cultural aspects. These are the core topics.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Topics are covered in depth without giving undue weight to any one aspect. This is particularly important with this kind of article we are faced with an enormous range of areas that can be explored with an equally huge number of citable sources. The article strikes a good balance.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article has neutral tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable article, no edit warring or other similar issues. Article has been subjected to vandalism in the past. A few legacy vandalism issues were picked up during the review (including a link to a bestiality porn site). Article is now semi-protected (IMO most articles should be) hopefully this will prevent further attacks. Nevertheless, the topic will likely attract a certain level of nonsense (and occasionally worse) so vigilance on the part of editors will be required.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are either public domain and/or have appropriate commons tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good use of images. Pictures support the text.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some changes made as part of GA review process. These can be reviewed in the history section and the text trail below. Good use of archive links (wayback machine and similar) will reduce maintenance workload, not essential for GA but still good to see. Overall, the article covers the topic well with a blend of history, breeding, uses, cultural aspects, role in religion etc. Each area has an appropriate, but not excessive, level of detail for a general audience.

Review

Will go through the references again with the fine comb. Meantime I have a few picked up a few points in the text that should be considered:

• History - First para suggests that goats were domesticated Zagros mountains whereas ref 7 gives sites in Asia Minor (Anatolia / Turkey). Possible reword the text so it’s clear that the bezoar ibex is today found in the Zagros mountains but in the past it had a wider range.
  • Added.

• Mythology and folklore – Chinese Zodiac should probably be moved to separate section named “Chinese Zodiac” as its origins are with Taoism which is an active religious tradition rather than putting it with Mythology and folklore.
  • Well, possibly, but since we're only mentioning the Chinese zodiac in one short sentence, and we mention the Western zodiac immediately afterwards, it's probably best where it is.
    • Maybe a section on Zodiac? I am not conformable with listing Chinese zodiac as mythology/folklore as it could be interpreted as downgrading its religious significance which, AFAIK, it does have in a way that western horoscopes don't.
      • Honestly I think it a bridge too far. This is an agriculture article with a little bit of culture on the side; the culture section is already quite long, indeed I'd say it was now at least as long as it should to avoid WP:UNDUE. If you're worried about the subsection labels we can just have an undivided 'Culture' chapter but the division (with 2 galleries) is certainly nicer.
        • I agree it looks nicer with two, but I am concerned re the Chinese Zodiac as I understand it to be part of the active religious practices of a very large number of people. I think the extra heading would be best. Alternatively one section.
          • Added Astrology to section title - issue closedStivushka (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• 'Religion' Section – Should probably be renamed “Judeo-Christian Religion” as the section is limited to this area of belief systems. Alternatively, you could add a paragraph on Hinduism (Daksha) so the religious section is broader.
  • Added.

• 'Reproduction' - Word "descented" needs to be explained to the lay reader. Either give an explanation or perhaps just say removal of horns.
  • Edited.

• "Intact males" sounds a bit euphemistic. I think a clearer description is needed for readers unfamiliar with farming practices.
  • Reworded.

BTW - I agree is much easier and tidier at this stage without table. Will add in again once we are finished review.Stivushka (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks.

• Introduction -Its short (much shorter than the equivalent for Sheep) but it does cover the key points with the exception of culture. I suggest adding a line on culture to the intro.Stivushka (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added to lead.

• Reproduction - "For the shock site, see goatse.cx" ... I don't that should be included.Stivushka (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Gone.

• Comparison with goats - I think a section comparing goats and sheep would be useful maybe also covering Geeps. There is a section in the Sheep article that could more or less be copied and pasted in. I think it is applicable to both.Stivushka (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • OK, done. I suppose that is just about in scope; in a way it'd make more sense in Caprinae than here.

References

Good range of supporting refs. Out of the 98, I found very few issues:-

• Ref 53 and 54 - Neither ref seems to say that Goats can carry loads. Please check as they are long articles and I might have missed something.
  • Removed that bit.

• Ref 64 - Need to link or otherwise identify the specific ADGA article that has the data.
  • Updated paragraph, new refs.

• Ref 67 - As best as I can tell the article does not state that yield per goat is 260g.
  • Removed that bit.

• Ref 76 - Article does not say that Goats and Humans have similar anatomy or physiology … other points in the section are supported.
  • Removed that bit.

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.