Template:Did you know nominations/Residual feed intake

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 09:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Residual feed intake

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that residual feed intake is a method used to determine the growth efficiency of beef cattle?

• Reviewed: Crime in Laos

Moved to mainspace by Tikuko (talk). Self nominated at 22:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC).

• This meets DYK criteria, but I'm not sure if DYK articles can't have red links. SL93 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I asked about the red links and they are allowed. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "RFI is phenotypically independent from the production traits used to calculate a given animal's expected feed intake, which allows comparison of animals who are producing at different levels" with "RFI is by definition phenotypically independent from the production traits used to calculate expected feed intake, it allows comparison between individuals differing in level of production". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I can fix the close paraphrasing for the creator later unless someone gets to it before I do, but only if someone wouldn't mind possibly doing a copy-edit afterwards. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the slow reply, I didn't notice this pop up on my watchlist and someone just pointed it out to me. I've corrected the offending line. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 19:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, but that was only an example of problematic phrasing, as opposed to the only instance. As another example, compare "has led some authors to believe that RFI is representative of individual differences in the metabolic processes" with "has led some authors to suggest that RFI may represent inherent variation in basic metabolic processes". This needs to be thoroughly checked against the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Part of the issue is that parts of this are so technical that there is a limited number of ways to phrase things. For example, I actually cannot think of another way to state that line. I'm not saying that makes it okay, I'm just trying to offer explanation. I'll take a more thorough when my laptop is in action again and change what I can. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• There have been no edits to the article in over four weeks, despite well over a thousand edits by the nominator in that time period. Closing the nomination due to the issues Nikkimaria noted above, which have not been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)