Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Domestic sheep

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:54, 13 February 2008.

Domestic sheep edit

Check external links

I've been working very steadily on this, and after 700 edits or so I can say that this is one of the best livestock articles, and is a substantial, verified and MOS compliant work on a vital subject. It's now GA, but for sure surpasses GA requirements. VanTucky 04:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could you provide specific page numbers for each of your book references? It seems you used a ref ID to source material coming from one particular book, without stating what page the relevant material came from. The article would look much better if these page numbers were provided. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think page numbers are possible with the <ref name> syntax? If they are, I'm happy to add them. But if not, I'm not willing to change my entire referencing system. Page numbers aren't an absolute requirement of the policy to my knowledge. VanTucky 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm asking for <ref name="Ensmingerp6">Ensminger and Parker, p6.</ref>, instead of generically referencing using <ref name="sheep and goat">{{cite book |title= Sheep and Goat Science, Fifth Edition|last=Ensminger |first=Dr. M.E. |coauthors= Dr. R.O. Parker |year=1986 |publisher=The Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc |location=Danville, Illinois |isbn=0-8134-2464-X }}</ref>. I don't have any major issues with your style of referencing, but I prefer specific page numbers for the sake of the reader's convenience. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know you could format it like that (your first example). I'll get on it for the book references. I assume that for less-used books that have only a couple pages applicable, adding that to the first template rather than (the same ones) every time is acceptable? VanTucky 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the latter style for the first book reference (don't forget to add the page number), and then you can use the former for all successive references. Alternatively, you can use {{cite book}} in a separate section entitled "References" (title your current references section as "Notes"), which lets you start off all book references with the former referencing style. By the way, graphical checkmarks are things you should avoid using in FACs. It's listed somewhere on the main FAC page. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't going to work. I only own two or three of book sources I used. I simply can't now: the majority of them are books I bought personally and then sold when no longer in use. I mean, I could guess the chapters, but I think that would be disingenuous and not very helpful to readers. VanTucky 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check Google Books or Amazon's "search inside" feature; you may find the books there. — Dulcem (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really solve the problem. Example: my most-used source (Storey's Guide to Raising Sheep) Amazon only shows the first five pages or so, and Google Books only a snippet (no page views at all). The truth is, considering how many citations the five or so main book sources use, this is a huge pain in the butt. I don't see anywhere in WP:V or WP:CITE that requires page numbers (if you know otherwise please point me to the right place), so I don't think it's necessary. The citations include all other details for verification. VanTucky 00:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be part of the manual of style: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Check the "Provide page numbers" section. — Dulcem (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that requires that I do things are A: impossible right now, and B: annoying and time consuming, then I'll just withdraw the nomination. VanTucky 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of the images seem to be from Western countries. Might some images from Asia, Africa, or South America be found to better represent the global spread of this species and its importance in various cultures? — Dulcem (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't seem to have any sheep picture from outside Europe/US/Australia/NZ. Narayanese (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does seem to have a few pictures of something called a "Cameroon sheep" (see this, this, this, and this), but I'm unsure if that is just another breed in the West, albeit one with African roots. Aside from that, have you tried searching any public domain image resources? Also, never rule out Flickr's Creative Commons images. Here are a few that might be useful: [1][2], [3], careful, this one's gross, [4], [5], [6], this one's gross too, [7], [8], [9]). That's quite a few, I know, but I hope some of these can be used to broaden the article's scope. — Dulcem (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the article goes into (IMO) unnecessary detail about the history of sheep in the Western world but entirely neglects the history of sheep elsewhere. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for images, Cameroon sheep are so minor a breed (even in Africa) that I am uncomfortable with adding an image of them. But there is a non-Western image I know that is good to add, it's of an Awassi lamb in Israel: Awassis are an important Middle Eastern breed. As for the detail on Wester n, this is because sheep are more important to countries such as Aus, NZ and the UK. Only South Africa is a major African sheep country, and while Asia has large numbers of sheep, it's mainly for local or regional trade at most. The fastest and most intense development of the animal has occured in the countries where I focus on. Though I would be happy to strip some of the U.S. history. It's too detailed really, and sheep aren't important today in this country. VanTucky 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the linked ones are pretty bad, as far as composition and usefullness. But the first Tunisian one is good, it would be even useful for husbandry (he's demonstrating one common way of holding a sheep: lifting the head under the chin). I'll make some changes, tell me what you think. VanTucky 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an Awassi image, could you add it to Awassi (sheep)? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing the changes. The article ranks China as the country with the largest sheep stocks, so perhaps an image from there would be in order (though I'd love to see the Tunisian shepherd image included as well). Here are some Creative Commons images from Flickr that might prove useful: [10]. — Dulcem (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-Western images added - the Tunisian and Israeli one. I have a Chinese one that would be good to add too, will do. VanTucky 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Chinese image added. With three new non-Western images, I think it's appropriate to call this one done? VanTucky 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Please don't check things "done" yourself, however. Let the original commentator be the judge of whether something is done or not. — Dulcem (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Global Sheep stock
in 2004
Number in millions
1.  People's Republic of China157.9 (0%)
2.  Australia101.3 (0%)
3.  India62.5 (0%)
4.  Iran54 (0%)
5.  Sudan48 (0%)
6.  New Zealand39.2 (0%)
7.  United Kingdom35.8 (0%)
8.  South Africa25.3 (0%)
World total1,059,810,132
Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization
Given the chart to the right (from the article), I'm not sure how you can justify that sheep are so much more important to Western countries than other countries. I still think there must be more information that should be added -- five of the top eight sheep countries are in Asia or Africa. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheer numbers circa one year do not convey overall historical and global impact. Countries with large numbers today like China and India export very little sheep products, have not been instrumental in developing any breeds of import, and have little to no impact on the rest of the history of the animal. You should read the history in the article. Spain for instance, has very little sheep today comparatively but was instrumental in the development of the most important sheep breed ever. Thus, its relevant history merits coverage. You can't view an organism and write an accurate and informative article without placing it in context, historical or otherwise. Numbers alone do not convey meaning. VanTucky 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I think they still could have some explanation. Western Asia was obviously important in sheep early on, but we don't find anything out about it after that. Readers won't know intuitively that nothing was going on there later, as you say--this should be explained. And Africa should at least be mentioned somewhat. How did sheep get there? Did it spread from Western Asia? Did it arise independently? Etc. Even if the coverage is not as extensive as with Europe, and even if it says it's not as important as Europe, the article would ideally let readers know why we care about the places that are discussed and implicitly reassure them that they're not missing anything. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simple truth is, none of the major book source available on domestic sheep give any significant coverage of Africa beyond South Africa. I talk some in the article on South Africa, but it's the only African country covered. Also in FAO stats, it's the only African country that's in the top 20 producers. Believe me, I've hunted down every reliable book on domestic sheep still in print. As for the rest of Asia (other than Aus, NZ etc.), again, same problem. I'm sure there's something there to be said, but none of the currently available sources on sheep in English are covering it. The real trouble is that most of the books on sheep are primarily aimed at the farmer, not a comprehensive history of the animal. Makes me want to write one :) VanTucky 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the book The Origins and Development of African Livestock? It's searchable online via google and appears to be at least one resource on the subject. This book also appears to have some coverage of the history of sheep in Africa. I'm not sure if either of these give any more recent information, or if it's all prehistoric. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First farmers didn't have much, but the other one was good. I've added a small Africa subsection to History. Thanks! VanTucky 05:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - prose is great. Tweaked it a bit myself. I concede it is long but it is a huge topic and I can't see where any cuts would come in. Many sections have subarticles already. I agree about some page numbers or chapters in the very least, I'll strike the conditional once this task is done. Given the circumstances I don't feel it is a deal-breaker. The comprehensiveness and the prose are great. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object because of size. It's 72kb of text and over 12,000 words. This is much too long for an introductory article about sheep. See WP:SIZE and WP:SS. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on cutting as we speak, but I feel this is unfair. The FA Lion article is also of comparable size, just for one example. VanTucky 21:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lion is 52KB prose and 8700 words; I'm not opining, just giving you the data from Dr pda's prose size script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't have the same script you have, but I've cut it down a little bit (I'm showing 107 kilobytes in the edit window). VanTucky 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, I was kind of borderline about Bird and might have objected to Lion if I had been around. I think that FAs are often way too long--articles should be readable in one sitting. (Links to in-depth articles give readers more information if they care enough.) If articles are too big, no one will make it to the bottom. I may try to go through and do some WP:SS myself to see what you think. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now condensed to less than 100KB in total. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a reply/explanation to Calliopejen, the reason the lead is supposed to summarise all really salient points is for those who d not wish to read the article in its entirety. I like the idea of the use of the lead, and the table of contents, in this way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, this rampant removal of content I have worked extremely hard on for months is tough, so I would ask that you be considerate of that. Second, if you're going to create subarticles (i.e. Domestic sheep reproduction), please find the full book cite and use it, so there aren't a bunch of ref errors caused by <ref name>'s with full cites. You could at least take the time to do that. VanTucky 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tim, means a lot to me. VanTucky 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry about that, I don't mean to be flip. If you think there are important facts being taken out that I don't appreciate the importance of, feel free to put them back. I am just trying to make suggestions as a neutral observer who knows pretty little about sheep what seems important/interesting to me, in accordance with trying to get the article at least within a reasonable distance of the 32kb recommended maximum. I figured being bold would make more sense than discussing extensively, and I also feel strongly that it's better to make subarticles that preserve all the research here rather than just trimming and having it all go into a black hole. I planned to get to the subarticles in a bit after working on the main one more. Anyways another suggestion: how about moving sheep in science to a see also? Sheep really aren't very important in science (one thing I knew about sheep!), as the article suggests, and people who don't read about these tangential facts probably won't feel like they're missing anything. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, reading it in detail you've done a great job. But I don't think 32 kb is our goal. Quite a few FA and non-FA animal articles are larger than that, and WP:SIZE very clearly states that 32KB is not a hard and fast place to be splitting. I don't think In science should go anywhere. I can try and trim it to be more concise. VanTucky 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With only 61KB of readable text in the current version (excluding references, captions and external links), that seems a perfectly acceptable size. The guideline says 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The ability to survive solely on pasture (even without hay) varies with breed, but all sheep are capable of doing so. - if all can survive, how can this ability vary? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is a little confusing, it's hard to explain. Basically, all sheep can live on pasture alone. But it depends on breed - some are better foragers than others. The word choice is key: all sheep can survive on pasture, but some cannot thrive (produce good wool and large lamb crops) on it without supplementation. Feel free to clarify this if you want. VanTucky 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've fixed my one concern, an excellent and very thorough article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tried to format the images in the article to conform to the manual of style, but my edits were reverted with the comment that I made things "ugly". I counter by saying that by specifying image sizes (and not specifying whether an image floats left or right), you break the screen for users with low-resolution monitors. Also, the "upright" marker, also part of the MOS, prevents portrait-style images from overwhelming the screen in relation to landscape-oriented ones. It would be nice to see the article conform to the manual of style in this regard. — Dulcem (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The frank truth is, if being FA means having no ability to manip image size, so the article has thumbs placed all over that you can't make out, then I don't want it. WP:MOS#Images is a guideline, and doesn't need to be applied the same in every article. Exceptions can be made. Nowhere in MOS does it say that upright syntax should be used all over, in fact, I've never seen anyone actually use it before in more than one image. The point of images is to illuminate the text and make it enjoyable to read. MOS#Images should not be stuck to 100% when it makes images not accomplish this as well. That's perfectly in-line with the spirit of IAR, which is policy. VanTucky 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you being so combattive? I didn't object to your article, I merely asked for some clarification as to why the MOS is being ignored on images. If leaving images at thumbnail size makes them too small for you, that simply means you need to specify a larger size in your personal preferences. We need to be cognizant of our non-logged-in users, especially those with low-resolution monitors and slow connection speeds. That is why the MOS recommends leaving things at thumbnail size. I don't find your arguments against following this sober advice to be compelling. — Dulcem (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this is just a lot of stuff to deal with. I've basically been editing alone at the article for a while, so I apologize if I'm being difficult. The main point of including images is to enhance informativeness. If the regular thumb size without forcing makes it so an image is hard to make out and unattractive, then the point of having the image has been defeated. Making sure images do their job in the article is more important than accounting for slow and low-res computers, which are catching up all the time. A difference of a couple hundred pixels is not going to make a huge difference. It's a longer article, so people with bad connections are going to have trouble whatever the case. VanTucky 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've specified left/right for all the images and moved one up a bit in the health section, to avoid overlap. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that images should be default-sized. For those of us with large monitors, it is easy to change image preferences to make them larger (that is what I have done). I think it is important to use default sizes so that users can decide for themselves how big images should be; it's hard to judge what will be informative for other readers when monitor sizes and formats are so varied. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still couldn't disagree more strongly, but I guess with multiple people requesting it, it's time to compromise. I've removed the forced thumb size from all but one image. The first image in Reproduction really is completely useless unless made larger. You can't see the point of the image (the lamb being born) otherwise. I showed the article to three people (off-wiki), and I had to point out the birth at a smaller size. There's no point in having the image without it being large enough to see what's going on. VanTucky 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a cropped version of the birth image, but even with that change, the new-born lamb would be invisible at thumbnail size. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's noticeability, not visibility, that I was concerned with. But cropping seems to have solved the issue. VanTucky 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found this a well-researched, informative and well-written article about a topic where previous knowledge was limited to how to roast. I'm old enough to have an attention span of more than five minutes, so length no problem either. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all those who touched on requiring page numbers, through Calliopejen's work and very little of my own, the article is steadily being converted to footnotes with page numbers. VanTucky 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: Missing publishers on citations (examples: Shulaw, Dr. William P. (2006). "Sheep Care Guide". Retrieved on November 27, 2007. and ^ Sheeppoopaper.com. Retrieved on December 1, 2007. ), something is wrong with this ISBN (Thirsk, Joan; H. E. Hallam, Stuart Piggott, et al. (2000). The Agrarian History of England and Wales. Cambridge University Press. ISBN v=0521200741. ); lots of work needed on missing page numbers; page numbers need to be standardized, is it p6 or p.6, is it p.6 or p. 6, pls be consistent; image captions need to be reviewed throughout per WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation on full sentences vs. fragments, I fixed a few as samples); I found many mixups between WP:DASHes and WP:HYPHENs, pls review, sample edits left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page number consistency, dashes, the ISBN and the captions have been fixed. Publishers and page numbers are still to be added. Epbr123 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the writing in general is very good, there is an abuse of – in the prose itself. It's ok in units, but I found it more difficult to read than with other FAs because of those. If possible, I think it would improve the article if you would replace as many as you can with commas rathern than dashes. Juliancolton Talk 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed several, but the ones I noticed and left in are the grammatically correct usage of them. In general, people tend to overuse commas at the expense of other, usually more grammatically correct punctuation, so I hesitate to do a lot of filling with commas. VanTucky 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks better in my main areas of concern, and a couple of dashes are fine where they are. Support now Juliancolton Talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This citation needs to be fixed, there is no Ekarius source:
  • ^ Ekarius et al p. 127.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a source, it just should say "Simmons & Ekarius", as she is a coauthor (Storey's Guide to Sheep). I've fixed it. VanTucky 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a very informative read. I have some points, none of which are enough to make my support conditional:
  • I'm not enlightened by the link to agouti. It links to a disambiguation page. Is it a colouration? It's not (directly) listed on that page.
  • A little inconsistency in range descriptions: eg "Ewes typically weigh 100–225 pounds... the larger rams between 100 and 350 pounds"; dash in one range, but a "between... and... " range in the same sentence.
  • The link to the UK Rare Breeds Survival Trust isn't to a page which lists the statistic of 25 native breeds with 3,000 registered animals. Also, does this mean '25 breeds each with fewer than 3,000 animals'?
  • "The abomasum is the only one of the three chambers analogous to the mammalian stomach". Sheep are of course mammals, so a finer distinction may need to be made here.
  • "By that span of the Bronze Age" does this mean "by the end of the Bronze Age", or "by the span of the Bronze Age"?
  • You probably want to separate your reference texts from your numbered citations; perhaps by calling the texts "Bibliography", or the citations "Footnotes"
— BillC talk 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed on the agouti thing.
  • Fixed the range.
  • The RBST thing is tricky. I linked to the listing of sheep breeds that are on their watchlist. The explanation of what "critical" or "vulnerable" exactly means is on the main watchlist page. The key thing that needs verification (to me) is the number of breeds threatened (25 at 3,000 each), so I linked to the appropriate page for that. Make sense?
  • I didn't write it that way, it was more nuanced before. I'll fix it: what it really means is that all the other chambers ferment and break down the food, and the abomasum is the only one that actually absorbs the nutrients (like our stomachs).
Probably my fault that one, changed "mammalian" to "human" Tim Vickers (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means two-three thousands years after 6,000BC. It's a reference to the dates of the sentence immediately preceding it.
  • Done.
  • Hope that addresses your needs, thanks for participating. VanTucky 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Domestic_sheep&oldid=1197949463"