Talk:Polled Dorset/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will take up this review and help you raise the article to GA standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

First inspection

• The lead (first paragraph) should be a summary of the rest of the article. It should give the reader an idea of what is included in the body of the text and should not contain anything that is not included later.
• In this case, the lead starts off well but then includes the statement about the Australian Poll Dorset, but that information is not included later. It is often good to leave finalising the lead section until after you have completed the rest of the article.
• The order of the sentences in the History section seems a bit confusing. The sentences are mostly satisfactory but are strung together in a rather haphazard way. My preference would be to start off the paragraph something like this "In (whatever year it was), a hornless lamb was born to Horned Dorset parents at (wherever it was) as a result of a genetic mutation."
• You could then continue about the 3 other hornless lambs and get on to NCSU 401 and NCSU 402.
• After that you could continue chronologically with the research, inclusion in the Registry and the spread of the breed.
• "Polled Dorsets are ideal for commercial settings because they do not have horns that can get caught in fencing or cause damage when they butt." - This sentence would be better in the "Polled versus Horned Dorsets" section.
• "Polled Dorsets are a medium sheep that are prolific, heavy milkers, long lived and produce hardy lambs with moderate growth and maturity that yield heavy muscled carcasses." This sentence is rather long and would be better split in two. I would say "medium-sized" rather than just "medium".
• "...with a yield between fifty and seventy percent." - What does this mean? 50 and 70% of what?
• When you give measurements, you should have the metric equivalent. This can be done with a "convert" template like this --- 150 to 200 pounds (68 to 91 kg).
• "The fiber diameter ranges from 33.0 to 27.0 microns." - It is customary to put the smaller measurement before the larger one.
• "...aseasonal breeding characteristics" - "Aseasonal" is an infrequently used word. Could you explain it or replace it with a phrase such as "can breed at any time of year" or "can breed more than once a year" or whatever is correct (I haven't studied your sources).
• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Second reading

• Excellent. The History section is a great improvement on its previous state. The article now meets nearly all the requirements to be listed as a GA.
• Take another look at the lead (opening paragraph) and "flesh" (ha-ha) it out a bit. You should add a bit about how the breed was developed, its wool and meat characteristics and why it became more popular than the horned version. I would expect it to end up about twice as long as its present length. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we have changed the intro to accommodate what you were asking for--SJRick (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's better, but I have rephrased it a bit. Feel free to alter it further if you wish. It is not normal to have references in the lead section because all the things mentioned there are covered in the body of the text where they should be, and are, referenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought your rephrasing worked well. If we are to simply take the references out of the lead, what else do you think we should do in order to achieve good article status? Thanks for your help.--Ryenocerous (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the references out of the lead. I think this article now meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for diligently helping us to get this article to good status.--SJRick (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Criteria

• 1a The article is well written.
• 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and has been improved since this review began.
• 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
• 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
• 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
• 4 The article is neutral
• 5 The article was created on 27th March 2013 and has been worked on by a group of students as a class project.
• 6 The images are properly licensed.
• 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.

• Overall assessment - Pass.