Talk:Jacob sheep/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DiverDave. I'll be updating this page with my comments as I go along and will fill out the checklist at the end; please let me know if you have any comments or concerns. – anna 10:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

General

• Y Chronologically, it would make more sense to place the history section first (would lead into conservation rather nicely). This seems to be the convention followed in many animal breed GAs and sheep breed articles, but it's your call.
• Y The taxobox was used, even though {{Infobox sheep breed}} is available. Is it deprecated, or is there another reason to avoid using it? Taxobox may be misleading in this context.
• Y Is there a reason to use very small headings (prefaced by semicolons) instead of those at level 3? Largely personal preference, but possibly worth mentioning in case you'd like those sections to appear in the table of contents.
• Y Last sentence of "Husbandry" has a citation needed tag: "Fences should be close-woven to minimize the possibility of horns getting caught." (Wikipedia's not a guide on caring for sheep — maybe remove?)
• Y Sentence in "Wool and hides" has a citation needed tag: "This is called 'quilted fleece' and is an undesirable trait."

I have added the missing inline citation. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y I've removed the category "Herbivorous animals" — it's unnecessary for a breed.

Lead

• Made more copyedits. Summarizes article well.
• Would a mention of Tay-Sachs be warranted? I think that it's covered in enough detail to work in the lead.

History

Please don't be intimidated by the quantity — many are simple wording suggestions or queries.

• Y First paragraph might flow a little more if tidbit about being named after Jacob is placed nearer to the second sentence, although I see why it also has relevance to the art piece

I rewrote the first 3 paragraphs in an attempt to improve the flow. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "It is possible that the resulting breed may have accompanied the westward expansion of human civilization through Northern Africa, Sicily, Spain and eventually England." — remove "It is possible that"; redundant

redundant text has been removed. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y Inconsistent? Beginning of third paragraph states that theory about fat-tailed sheep is alternate and possibly related, but the last sentence says that there is no compelling evidence. If that's the case, is undue weight being given to this apparently spurious theory? It's either worth explaining a little more or rewording, since one reads that paragraph assuming it's valid and then reaches the last sentence, which seems to state the opposite.

paragraph has been reworded in an attempt to remove inconsistency: though the historical record has only scant evidence, recent genetic studies provide compelling evidence. I hope this is clear enough. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. – anna 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y Remove external link to "Leviticus 3:9"?

external link has been removed. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "There is however no compelling evidence from historical records to suggest that the Jacob is descended from the fat-tailed sheep, or any other breed of sheep from the Middle East." -> "However, there is no compelling evidence from historical records to suggest that the Jacob is descended from the fat-tailed sheep or any other Middle Eastern breed."?

I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y Consider merging shipwreck legend with fat-tailed sheep legend, if both are of similar veracity (you'll know whether this is the case or not, so a comment explaining would be appreciated)]

• Y Wrong source for "At that time, Jacobs were often kept as ornamental animals grazed in parks, which probably kept the breed extant." (found in source #1)

I have replaced inline citation with the correct source. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "At that time, Jacobs were often kept as ornamental animals grazed in parks ..." -> "At the time, Jacobs were often kept as ornamental or "park" animals ..." (jibes with source)

I think this is better now (?) DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Jacobs were ideal for this role, as they were picturesque but required minimal care." is verbatim from source #1

I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Scant selection occurred for anything but hardiness, spots, and four horns." same as above (and it's awkwardly worded) — meaning is somewhat ambiguous so I'm afraid I can't offer any specific suggestions, as I'm sure you'll know what it's supposed to say

I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "The result was an unimproved breed that looked after itself well" — what, exactly, does this mean in the context?

I removed this sentence altogether. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y Will assume good faith that the offline citation mentions Jacobs specifically as guard sheep

Thank you! DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "A commonly-held but mistaken belief is that the Jacob is a descendant of a subarctic breed of sheep brought by Vikings during the Middle Ages." — who holds this belief? Are there any sources that say it is commonly-held or a frequent misconception?

I have replaced the text "A commonly-held but mistaken belief is that the Jacob..." with "Some people believe that the Jacob...", and added an inline citation to support this assertion. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y To keep things in rough chronological order, entire paragraph should probably be moved

I have moved the paragraph to maintain chronological order. DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "remained rare in America until recently" — is there a specific year or decade, or even a range?

replaced "remained rare in America until recently" with "remained rare in America until the 1980s." DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Most of today’s population of American Jacobs is descended from imports since around 1980." -> "Most of the current American Jacob population is descended from 1980s imports." (may not be the best way to word, perhaps you can think of a better one)

replaced "Most of today’s population of American Jacobs is descended from imports since around 1980." with "Most of today’s population of American Jacobs is descended from imports since that time." DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just done a small copyedit on that sentence, let me know if I've changed the meaning. – anna 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Jacobs have become quite popular among small flock holders as well as handspinners and weavers." -> "Jacobs have become quite popular among small flock holders, handspinners and weavers." (what does "quite" mean here?)

I have removed the unnecessary word, "quite". DiverDave (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservation status

• Y "The breed is estimated to have fewer than 1,000 annual registrations in the United States and a global population estimated at fewer than 5,000." -> "The breed is estimated to have fewer than 1,000 annual registrations in the United States and a global population of less than 5,000."?
• Y "...; identifying and recording the purebred Jacob population continues to be a challenge for American breeders." -> "...; identifying and recording purebreds is a continual challenge for American breeders." (redundancy, simplicity?)
  • Y On that note, is it the responsibility of breeders or the overseeing body to record purebreds? I understand identification, but recording specifically may need to be explained a little bit.

It is not the breeders responsibility, but rather that of the breed registries. Thanks for pointing this out. I have rewritten the entire section, addressing all of the aforementioned concerns to the best of my ability. DiverDave (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made two small modifications; as always, if I've botched the meaning, I can be reverted. – anna 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Physical characteristics

• Y You could condense the following if wanted; minor point and in no way essential: "Jacobs are small, multi-horned, piebald sheep that resemble goats in their conformation. The Jacob is not however the only breed that may produce polycerate and/or piebald offspring." -> "The Jacob is a small, multi-horned, piebald sheep that resembles a goat in its conformation, though it is not the only breed that can produce polycerate or piebald offspring."
  • Y Same as above, flows better: "Other polycerate breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro. Other piebald breeds include the Finnsheep and the West African Dwarf." -> "Other polycerate breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro, and other piebald breeds include the Finnsheep and the West African Dwarf."

I have rewritten the paragraph. It now reads: "The Jacob is a small, multi-horned, piebald sheep that resembles a goat in its conformation. However, it is not the only breed that can produce polycerate or piebald offspring. Other polycerate breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro, and other piebald breeds include the Finnsheep and the West African Dwarf." This does flow better—thank you! DiverDave (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y Maybe? "The rams have short scrotums free of wool, holding the testicles closer to the body than modern breeds. The ewes have small udders free of wool that are also held closer to the body than in modern breeds." -> "The rams have short scrotums free of wool which hold the testicles closer to the body than those of modern breeds, while the ewes have small udders free of wool that are also held closer to the body than those of modern breeds."

I have rewritten the sentence. It now reads: "The rams have short scrotums free of wool which hold the testicles closer to the body than those of modern breeds, while the ewes have small udders free of wool that are also held closer to the body than those of modern breeds." DiverDave (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Y Made some other small copyedits -- let me know if they're okay.

Your copyedits are fine. Thanks for taking the time to read this article so carefully! DiverDave (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's been a pleasure! Great job with it. Anna^talk 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're free to ignore everything from here on out since Wizardman is wrapping this up, but see below -- I'll leave comments anyway; do what you like with them. Just suggestions! (Also applies to husbandry, Tay-Sachs, and lead.)

• Made some routine copyedits that I think improve the flow, but are open to discretion.
• "There is no such thing as a polled purebred Jacob." -- this seems like it may be a little bit redundant when taking the prior sentence into account. Also, "is considered an indication" seems weaker and less authoritative than "there is no such thing".
• "strongly attached to the skull" -- are any horns attached weakly to a skull?
• "Rams have larger horns than ewes." -- remove? This is already stated in the previous paragraph and seems a bit out of place.
• "Some individual sheep may develop a natural "break" in the fleece" -- not sure I understand what this means.

Husbandry

• Once again, more copy-edits -- the sections are a lot shorter when I make those changes as I go along! As always, revert if you prefer the old version.
• "easy-lambing" may not be intuitive to the layperson.

Comments

• It says "corresponds roughly to 32.7–27.9 microns average fiber diameter". I think this might be more universal and easier to read as 'corresponds to an average fiber diameter of about 32.7–27.9 micrometers

I have replaced the text "which corresponds roughly to 32.7–27.9 microns average fiber diameter, or Low 1/4 Blood to 1/4 Blood on the American or Blood grading system." with "which corresponds to an average fiber diameter of about 32.7–27.9 micrometers, or Low 1/4 Blood – 1/4 Blood on the American or Blood grading system." DiverDave (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• It says "generally 3-5 inches and may be up to 7 inches" and "weighs 3-6 pounds". These need conversions.

I have added conversion templates for these units. Thanks for your suggestions! DiverDave (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise it's quite an extensive article. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good. It's now looking good to me. Lightmouse (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Started well but it's been a couple weeks since any comments. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Left a comment on DiverDave's page last week -- I don't have much time atm but will be resuming this weekend; I want to give it my full attention. Hope that's okay – anna 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we still making progress on this review? WP:There is no deadline, but this review is #2 at WP:GAN/R#Old reviews, so it seems to be going more slowly than average. Sometimes that indicates only that the people are busy in real life (and there really is no deadline), but if you need help, please leave a note at WT:WikiProject Good articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll wrap up the review since it seems to have been abandoned. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "The Jacob is indeed named for the Biblical figure of Jacob" I'd take out the indeed. combining with the sentence above may help too, i.e. "Jacob, the sheep's namesake, ..."
• "Norsemen are indeed believed to have introduced" as above.
• "There is no such thing as a polled purebred Jacob)" rm parenthesis, as I didn't see a preceding ( anywhere.
• "white horns are undesirable." undesirable to the sheep themselves or humans?

I'll put the article on hold for a couple days and will pass it once these few issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Putting this down here so as to avoid interfering -- DiverDave and Wizardman, I sincerely apologize for not finishing this up much sooner. I had absolutely intended to do so but was dealing with a variety of real life issues this month (and part of last) that prevented me from spending time on Wikipedia. Thank you for picking up where I left off.

I think I'll post all of my other comments under the above headings as a sort of peer review; hopefully neither of you mind. Once again, I apologize -- never intended to let this hang for so long! Anna^talk 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made my final comments above. I enjoyed the review process and learned a lot about how to make it move more efficiently, which is always a plus! Thanks again for your patience, and for the quick replies to my many nitpicky comments about the article (which is great). Best wishes, Anna^talk 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the suggested edits above, and your copyedits do look good. Everything checks out now, you got most of it reviewed so there wasn't too much I needed to check. Since everything checks out now, I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, new to the commenting and not sure I have this right. I added a link to owner reviews of Jacob Sheep but it was removed as spam. http://www.rightpet.com/Livestock-poultryDetail/jacob-sheep Site is an educational site where owners do numerical and written reviews of the breeds/ species of animals they own. [[User:bretthodges| —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC).