Jump to content

Talk:Ayrshire cattle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


untitled

[edit]

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/ayrshire/ has quite a lot of info on Ayrshire cattle, but I am not familiar with paraphrasing protocols from a single source??? Ulp --Garble 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Ayrshires in the U.S., I added that fact about efficient grazing and low somatic cell count and whatnot awhile ago. Today I changed the part that said they have bad personalities...they aren't really stubborn, more like fiesty. And it isn't very objective to say that that's a bad thing. Anyway, yeah, I changed it. I was also thinking about adding different pictures (that one is a terrible representation of the breed!) but I'm not sure how. I have the "ideal Ayrshire" painting as well as professional photos of my own animals that could replace the current photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.89.44 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is successfully changed. Leo.Li111 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Pictures needed

[edit]

This article has an atrocious picture, the cow looks terrible. Anybody got better? Vaarok (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Commons cat... I've tried looking in Flickr but I've only found one or two, and they're there already. I have loads of personal photos of the breed, but I'm afraid they're more of the cute and interesting type... No champion level animals there. Also, I'll need to dig through my personal archives (~halfway to China that is) to find them... I'll look for them though. Stay tuned :) Pitke (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is successfully changed. Leo.Li111 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayrshire cattle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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


CLOSED
GA1 review was ended several days ago. Please continue this post-review discussion at Talk:Ayrshire cattle. A new review will be opened in due course. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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." CassiantoTalk 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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. CassiantoTalk 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. CassiantoTalk 09:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, I'm afraid, is just for starters. CassiantoTalk 21:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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. CassiantoTalk 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ;)) CassiantoTalk 15:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. CassiantoTalk 15:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I read that and worked on and nominated Lego. See you around. Tortle (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? CassiantoTalk 10:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Lead image

[edit]

I propose we change the lead image to this one. It is not ideal because it is a show ring animal, but IMHO is better than the current face-on image of a calf. DrChrissy (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, much he better and without the distracting background than the current one. CassiantoTalk 17:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the best we have got. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Units

[edit]

The article talks about "pounds of milk" and this is faithful to the source, but, is it usual to discuss milk in terms of weight, rather than volume (gallons, litres, etc)?DrChrissy (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds are certainly an odd unit to use? I would convert into volume, although how to do this using a template, I really don't know. CassiantoTalk 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There might not be a template. Might need manual calculation assuming 1 kg of milk = 1 litre (this is the conversion for water). Do you think this is acceptable if we put a footnote with it?DrChrissy (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a good idea. Biblioworm, your thoughts? CassiantoTalk 19:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but I didn't see anything about an average of (whatever that number was) pounds of milk per year. I therefore reworded the section in accordance with what I actually saw in the sources. I'm hardly an expert on cattle or any sort of animal myself, so any expert is of course free to revert if I'm incorrect. --Biblioworm 19:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. TheMagikCow, would you care to elaborate on this and to provide a reliable source? CassiantoTalk 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK looking for a source now! Biblioworm it looks much better! TheMagikCow (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are [1] and [2] and [3]. They all measure milk in pounds, which is the norm, for large amounts. I think using pounds then litres in brackets is better. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a very brief check on this and it quickly became apparent that both volume and mass are used. Perhaps the use of mass is used more in the U.S. - I don't know. If this article is submitted for GA, it seems like the sort of question that might arise so preparing a supporting source/statement might be prudent.DrChrissy (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is; stay true to the source, but also provide litres afterwards. i am going to be bold and change it. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - I think that is the safe thing to do.DrChrissy (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be careful not to mix and match AmEng with BrEng. Choose a format (with BrEng being more preferable seeing as the cow originated, and is named after Ayrshire) and stick to it. You can always give equivalents in foot notes should you wish. CassiantoTalk 12:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayrshire cattle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

I think that it is about finding what is notable and what can be sourced. Limousin cattle has a whole section about the significance of the herd book, for example, but no such significance exists here. Look at Belted Galloway. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPA stuff is normally explained with "IPA" and in parentheses.
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "average adult Ayrshire cow weighs 450 to 600 kilograms (990–1,320 lb)" main: "The average adult individual weighs more than 1,200 lb (540 kg).[8]" should be consistent.
Made consistent with source. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are now desired traits of easy" reads odd to me.
Fixed. No expert on grammar, so please feel free to change it. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox says distribution is worldwide yet the population section only mentions the UK and the US.
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foraging is mentioned in the infobox but not in the text.
  • "Which strains of cattle were crossbred..." poorly written.
  • " in length.Due" space required.
Added space. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their milk production can reach 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) or greater per lactation" 9.1 tons of milk per lactation? I don't think so.
Per annum. Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add publishers or works to all references, and be consistent with the date formats used.
  • US Ayrshire or USA Ayrshire? And US or U.S.?
Using U.S. as it stays true to the source. Charity is registered as U.S. as well. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "63,356 cattle were registered" clarify that this is Ayrshire cattle.
Yes! All clarified! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to be done here in order to bring this up to the standard required to cover the bases for GA, so I'll put it on hold for a week in the hope that some progress can be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • TheMagikCow, why have you nominated this for GA while its undergoing improvements? CassiantoTalk 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cass, I think this was nominated back in June. It needs some real hard work to get it up to level of the other, similar cattle articles that I've seen, despite the quick changes made above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers RM. Another reviewer tried to quickly pass it the other day and in a worse state than it is in now, believe it or not. I took umbrage at this as it was certainly not fit for a C-class, let alone a GA. The reviewer was bollocked and feeling sorry for MagikCow, I advised him/her on the talk page about what to do next. I even offered to help with regards to prose, layout etc, which I have been trying to do. As I'm not familiar with cows or cattle - not since my nightclubbing days anyway ;) - I enlisted DrChrissy to help. Simultaneous to this, MagikCow requested help at the Guild of Copy Editors page and Biblioworm popped along to muck in. As far as I knew, DrChrissy, Biblioworm and I were trying to fix things. MagikCow decided to ignore our improvements and went ahead and nominated it at GAN; he sought no advice with regards to its new review here; if he/she had of done, I would have told them not to. The nominator, I feel, is desperate to have this pass GA, but he really needs to be patient. MagikCow, if you're reading this, listing it again here in this condition was a foolish thing to do. Please be patient. CassiantoTalk 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has this article been submitted for GA again? If it has, this is very premature in my opinion.DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never re nominated it. Cassianto reverted the review by another inexperienced editor and left the nomination standing. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reverted the review? No, I opposed the articles promotion because it was rubbish. My colleagues and I don't want to see this fail, so we are putting the effort into doing what should've been done the first time. If this wasn't renominated, why is the header "GA2"? CassiantoTalk 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cassianto, I was the one who reverted the original review/promotion as part of a massive cleanup of the inexperienced editor who wreaked havoc overnight—17 GANs, 5 reviews including 3 immediate promotions, one of which was this article, and which I undid. TheMagikCow had nothing to do with this restoration, which reverted the nomination to status quo ante: an ordinary GAN. It is GA2 because we needed to leave the GA1 in place to show what the original reviewer did; this is similar to what happens when a GA1 is abandoned and the nomination needs to be put back into the reviewing pool with its original seniority to find a new reviewer, but there are existing comments from the incomplete review. (Only if the review was opened and there were no comments do we have the GA1 page deleted and start over at GA1.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the weight of opposition to this nomination, I'm inclined to fail it right now, pending updates. Any comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if you could point out sections that need improvements, compare it to other cattle GAs, look at Belted Galloway. See my comment on the first point. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out two GAs already which would serve as useful templates for what to expect. The Belted Galloway article is weak and I'm surprised it's a GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheMagikCow perhaps you might consider that getting an article to GA should not be the goal of your editing efforts. (Please note this is not a back-handed comment on your ability, simply a comment on your motivation) Sure, make the article as good as you can, but it might be that the information simply isn't there to make it a GA (I think this might be the case for the Ayrshire). I personally have never nominated an article for GA. Early in my editing of animal articles I saw some of the comments or suggestions in a GA review and I thought they were so ridiculous, they were totally wasted on the average reader and a waste of editor's time. My own daily motivation for editing is to always leave an article better than I found it, but not with the aim of raising it to GA...although that may happen later. I hope this helps.DrChrissy (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case I think I'll fail it for now. Good luck with future improvements. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ayrshire cattle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayrshire_cattle&oldid=1195397099"