Talk:North American Piedmontese

Tweaks in the prose

User:7&6=thirteen, just wanted to acknowledge your exceptional collaboration in helping to make this article even better. Your work is appreciated. I added periods before the superscript because it looks better, but if such punctuation doesn't meet protocol, feel free to delete them. I made a few tweaks to the prose, and it appears we may be developing a GA candidate. . Atsme☯^Consult 15:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. That's what I do. It helps to have a really good article to begin. I agree, this is well on its way to GA. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the strategic move of text from the body to a footnote dropped Earwig's evaluation down by 5%. Currently at 31.5%, listed as "unlikely" for the edit #639497924. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Love how this article is evolving. I do so appreciate the unlimited possibilities of GF collaboration. Atsme☯^Consult 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A fresh pair of eyes, hands, a spare brain and some additional research — and pretty soon you've got something. There is a synergy, synthesis and analysis that is lacking when one is the sole editor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: is there any way to make the "breed box" more balanced, particularly the measurement column? It looks strange so far over to the right. Atsme☯^Consult 01:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Help}} 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are stuck with the current format of the infobox - to change the format would mean changing the format of very many articles - Template:Infobox cattle breed is a sub class of Template:Infobox animal breed which is a sub class of Template:Infobox. To change Template:Infobox would probably change every article in Wikipedia. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North American Piedmontese cattle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheMagikCow (talk · contribs) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I am very happy to pass this article as a GA. It may not be as long as some other articles but covers all the important aspects of the cattle breed.
It passes the criteria one and two easily as there are plenty of citations and it is well written and not in need of copyedit.
The main aspects are all explained in a clear way.
It is very neutral and has never had an edit war and no vandalism in the last 50 edits.
The images are sufficient. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you!! Atsme☯^Consult 04:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions

• Why do we say that there are 2000 of these animals in the USA when the Piedmontese Association of the United States says it registers 12000 (not that it is a reliable source for that number)?

• Why is the myostatin deficiency in this breed described as "unique" when it is known in many other breeds, most notoriously the Belgian Blue? Is it a different gene? (yes, the statement is sourced to OSU; unfortunately that source has been found, again and again, to be far from reliable).

• Why is there no discussion of calving difficulty here, or data on the proportion of births that require Caesarian section?

• Why do we include one person's speculation on the zebuine origin of this breed? There is an almost infinite number of silly and/or outdated theories about where cattle came from, how they are related etc (see, e.g., Felius 2011 for discussion); what we need to report here is factual material from reliable modern scientific sources.

• Crucially, is there any evidence whatsoever that this breed actually exists? There is of course a North American Piedmontese Association, but is that an association of breeders of North American Piedmontese cattle, or a North American association of breeders of Piedmontese cattle? Can anyone point to an academic or official source that uses this name? It's not reported to DAD-IS by the USDA, it isn't in the latest edition of Mason.

• … and (sorry, but it seems a necessary question) does any contributor here have any connection to that association? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why does it seem a necessary question to ask if any contributor has a connection?
• Why don't you just edit the article instead of asking why something wasn't done, and cite it to the reliable sources that support the statement?
• If you have an issue with an academic source that was found to be unreliable, please provide the supporting documentation so it can be reviewed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)