Talk:Hock burns

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Animal rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Birds Low‑importance

Hock burns is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Veterinary medicine Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Hock burns appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that farmed birds often get marks known as hock burns from the ammonia of other birds' waste?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hock burns.

Wikipedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hock burns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025135536/http://www.ciwf.org.uk/campaigns/primary_campaigns/broiler.html to http://www.ciwf.org.uk/campaigns/primary_campaigns/broiler.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia 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 by Bruxton talk 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that farmed birds often get marks called hock burns from the ammonia of other birds' waste?

Source: "Millions of supermarket chickens show skin burns from living in their own waste, a BBC investigation has found. 'Hock burn' is caused by ammonia from excrement" https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68406398

ALT1: ... that farmed birds often get lesions called hock burns after living in the manure of other birds? Source: (1)
Reviewed:
Comment: Open to other ideas of hooks here. Before expansion, the page size plugin showed a prose size of "617 B (106 words)", but now shows "3384 B (573 words)", so is more than 5x larger in bytes and in words

5x expanded by TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Also I now realize that I'm not 100% sure if I selected the correct date when submitting this. I started working to expand the article on the 18th, but didn't finish until around today. Let me know if I filled this out incorrectly TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This article has about 3400 characters, but is divided into four sections of text (five counting the lede). Is it possible to amalgamate one or two? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged the shortest section (history) into the prevalence section since it talked about prevalence over time. I could probably move the Contributing factors section in there as well, but now the prevalence section is getting a little longer. It might instead be possible to merge the disease risk and severity if I can find some more sourcing about factors the affect the severity of the disease. TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me now. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X, @Crisco 1492: Any thoughts on the "often" part of the hook? I'm just not sure about that as a descriptor for this. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hey man im josh; I'm seeing prevalence rates of 74% and 80% cited in the article (which does count as "often" for me), but "may get" seems like a fair compromise if necessary. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]