Talk:Hog Island sheep/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 14:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.1 SM

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- I will preform a light copyedit personally, once you've addressed the other issues.

- You use the descriptives "hardiness" and "tough and hardy". I believe that this needs to be defined a bit, or put into context somehow. As someone who dosen't know a terrible amount about sheep, these terms were pretty much the only things I didn't understand.

There is an explanation of this where Mr Butler brought up this same problem. That can be used to expand the text somewhat. --Ettrig (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sheep are good at foraging, and apparently require little food (relative to other sheep, I suppose), but other than that the sources I have read simply describe the sheep as "hardy". Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I run GA candidates through CorenSearchBot's manual search. This came up clean.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

- There is information contained in the lead that is not contained in the main body of the article, specifically the information about the storm conditions causing the humans to leave, abandoning the sheep. Please make sure a few sentences on this are put into the main body text.

Under History, it is written: In 1933, a hurricane destroyed most of Hog Island, and with the inhabitants abandoning the settled areas.... I think that refers to the storm conditions mentioned in the lead. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. My bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It is not necessary to use citations in the lead, since all of the cited information with the exception of the storm point raised above is also in the main body, cited with the same sources. However you don't have to remove the citations if you don't want to. It's fine either way.

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references:

Acceptable

b. proper citation use:

Acceptable

c. no original research:

Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Needs work

- ~~... I think. It's not missing anything that my random spotcheck of other sheep breeds had, at least. The article is awfully small, although there's no size requirement built into GA.~~

- Concerns raised by the peer review that need to be addressed:

~~You mention that "other breeds...are more suited to modern agricultural techniques". You might elaborate on this. What exactly makes other breeds more suitable?~~ Done
The problems of inbreeding could be explained in greater detail. Since the Hog Island Sheep have been distributed to several locations, the 200 animals are not living together. Are the separate batches (or individual sheep) transported from one place to another for breeding? Is the captured semen shared among the subflocks? What other sheep breeds have been mixed with the Hog Island sheep? What specific inbreeding problems arise in sheep?
Should the Hog Island Sheep Association be mentioned in the article? Is it important enough to deserve a paragraph?

I tried to look into it. The "Hog Island Sheep Association" appears to be nothing more than a website run by the "Fingerlakes Woolen Mill". I really don't think the HISA is really much of an organization that's done anything; the only real work related to the sheep has ben done by the ALBC and USDA. Do you agree? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are the 200 sheep? Is it possible to give the sizes and locations of the subflocks?

- Additional concerns:

at the very bottom: '...producing almost pure Hog Island sheep except for the addition of some advantageous genes' - define "addition of some advantageous genes"; what is added, if anything, other than genetic diversity? Done
regarding the parasites questions that your teacher left in the teacher review: I wasn't going to make an issue of it before, because you presented a complete and cogent statement on the issue, however if you are able to do anything further to improve that area (especially on the 'are they internal or external parasites' question) that would be good.

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images have alt texts:

Acceptable

- I expanded the alt texts myself. Alt texts should be descriptive, rather than just repeating the name of the breed or saying 'black sheep'.

b. article is suitable for solid copy export:

Acceptable

c. catch all general aesthetics:

Acceptable

8. Other concerns Needs work

- The Mount Vernon external link does not appear to be functioning, it redirects to the main page when clicked. See the toolserver readout for details. If you can find the new permanent address for the page you're trying to link to, please do. If not, please remove the external link.

Fixed. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Is it typical to have History below Characteristics?

It is very untypical. I think it is good. --Ettrig (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very close now. Congratulations! --Ettrig (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-I will preform the copyedit and do the last round of checking this coming weekend, or right after it (unless someone beats me to the copyedit). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Research and conservation (after rediscovery)" is an awkward section heading. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 06:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that was one of the things I intended on changing during the CE. Most of the rest of the issues were minor grammatical things though, which is why I didn't ask for someone from the GOCE to come in and do major work. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, I'm sorry to double back on this, but I missed the peer review the first time around, thinking that the teacher review and the peer review were the same thing. The peer review listed some things that still need addressing. I put them in section 3a, which means that unfortunately I doubled back on the 'Acceptable' rating for that section.

On the plus side, you and Malleus have done an excellent job polishing the article up, and none of these new items are any more time intensive as the things you two have already handled over the past two days. I don't see any real reason why this wouldn't make GA well in time for the end of your project, which I believe is just under a month away. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROMOTED - Okay, I've looks this over once more and decided that it warrants being passed. The only things that never got completed from this GAN review were the logistical question of breeding between subflocks, and a clarification of what type of parasite the study was looking at. These are minor things. If you intend on taking this to FA, you'll probably need to expand the article and incorporate those pieces of information, but I couldn't find them myself and they aren't major things. On a personal note, I know that this GAN review was a bit of a mess, and I'm sorry for that. Finally, I encourage you to keep up with editing Wikipedia after your course is over, you've got the skill for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia is awesome. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]