Talk:Shetland cattle/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking though this article, I'm afraid I am of the view that it falls quite a way short of GA standard.

Here are my concerns:

The article's very short. While there is nothing in principle preventing an article of this length from being promoted to GA status, for a topic of this sort I think we can expect longer. If the topic is relatively obscure and/or recent, a shorter article may work, but, in this case, I'm not convinced.
Your sourcing is questionable. Research can start with, but shouldn't end with, a Google Search. A quick glance around Google off my own back has thrown up Val Porter's British Cattle, Lawrence Alderson's Rare Breeds (he's quoted as an authority on Shetland cattle elsewhere) and Linklater et al's Shetland Breeds: Lessons in Husbandry and History, for example. These strike me as valuable resources for an article of this type. There's also (and this is only me looking at the most recent material) a number of promising-looking hits on Google Scholar and on Google News/newspaper archives. There are plenty of other well-published reference works which may have some degree of coverage, such as J. V. Dohner's The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds.
Meanwhile, there is a reliance on rather questionable material in the article as it stands. The websites you're relying on aren't terrible (they've generally got very clear agendas, but I think that's inevitable when you're looking at a topic like this...) though they aren't ideal- Greenoak doesn't look like much, while The Beef Site and your "Save the Rare Breeds!" organizations should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. (The trade/hobby magazines aren't too bad.)
A lot of weasel words. You make some pretty vacuous claims which seems to be a cover for not having much to say and/or not wanting to go into the kind of detail which would be appropriate: "They are regarded as small in size by most breeders and organizations." // "The Shetland Cattle are considered an ancient breed, by most organisations because they date back to the Viking Era. It is believed that they first arrived between 700 and 1100 AD and have since experienced many other influences, such as cross breeding." // "which surprised many"
The writing is, in places, very clumsy. Take, for example: "They were once an important species in Scotland for their hardiness, Shetland cattle experienced a sharp population decline through the 19th century, with an estimated population of 15,000 cattle nearing extinction by the middle of the 20th the importing of larger breed bulls proved more popular with local crofters." That section as a whole really does not flow well.

To be precise, my concerns are about GA criteria 3, 1 and, to a certain extent, 2. The article certainly isn't terrible, and it's better than having a one-line stub (or redlink!), but it is a long way from GA standard yet. I appreciate that this really isn't what you want to hear after waiting so long for a review, but I think that, often, articles of this standard (that is, below the standard of GA, but not so terrible that they warrant a simple quick-fail) end up languishing. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]