(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Livestock Breeds Conservancy/archive1 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Livestock Breeds Conservancy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 [1].

American Livestock Breeds Conservancy[edit]

American Livestock Breeds Conservancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to introduce to you an article about the premier rare livestock breed conservation organization in the United States... After a lot of work on this article, I feel that it is finally ready for FAC. It was promoted to GA status in January of this year, and since then has been through a great peer review, as well as being read and commented on by a number of knowledgeable and helpful editors. This is not a field with a lot of coverage on WP, and this is the first organization article that I have completed significant work on, so I am looking forward to any comments on the structure, sources, etc.! Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander
  • Perhaps add "see also" links to articles on similar efforts for plants (Heirloom plant, etc)
  • In general, see also links should be integrated into the body of the article in FAs, because anything that is important enough to be mentioned in the see also section is important enough to mention in the body of a comprehensive article. At this point, I'm not sure how I would work this into the body of the article, especially as it's very tangential to the subject of the article. The article does mention that not just livestock is at risk of disappearing with the description of the work that the ALBC has done with Slow Foods USA, Chefs Collaborative, etc. If you have a better way of working this into the article, I'm all ears.
Thanks for the tip on See Also, I didn't know that FAC had that expectation. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hard and fast rule - obviously there are exceptions to everything. Mainly just something to keep in mind; in other words, why is a term important enough to link in the see also but not important enough to mention in the body of the article... Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section title "Organization and history" ... consider change to "History and organization", because that is the order the material is presented within the section.
  • Done.
  • Wording: " ... expenses stood at almost US$490,000, coming mainly from ...". To me, revenues "come from", but expenses "go to", or are "spent on" or "allocated to", etc.
  • Done.
  • There are two red links Chefs Collaborative and American Grassfed Association. Red links are permitted in FAs, of course, but this FAC process may be a good opportunity to create start-level articles for those topics. You probably have some sources ready to go. Just a suggestion.
  • I actually don't have much source information on these two, and hadn't heard of the first until I started writing this article. I'm a little iffy on whether the AGA is actually notable enough to have its own article. It is a growing organization that is becoming better known, and so if there isn't source material in existence there probably will be within a few years, but at this point there's not much third party stuff on them. The CC isn't really within my field of interest... I would like to point out that Rare Breeds Canada, SVF Foundation and National Animal Germplasm Program are all articles that have been created (by three different editors) during the development of this article, so we have been working on the redlinks!
Cool. I'm preparing an article for FA, and I created 7 smaller articles to eliminate the red links. I think those 7 smaller articles are more important for WP readers than the FA improvements I made to the one article. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large paragraph: "The preservation of various pure breeds .... rare livestock breeds in the US" has a single cite at the end of the paragraph. If that cite supports all the sentences in the paragr, it may be wiser to repeat the cite after every sentence, so in future years, if the paragr is modified, the connection of text-to-source is not lost. See WP:INTEGRITY.
  • The source at the end of the paragraph does reference the whole paragraph. However, I am reluctant to repeat the cite after every sentence, as none of it is really contentious and all it would do is create a sea of little blue numbers. If there are particular sentences that you would like to see referenced because you feel they are contentious or likely to be challenged, please let me know.
Sounds good. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You write "the premier rare livestock breed conservation organization" ... if there are other similar livestock organizations, they should be listed either in the body, or in a See Also section.
  • There are a few other livestock conservation organizations in the United States, but they are all very small, "kitchen table" organizations. They are not notable enough for articles at this point, nor will they probably ever be (unless something major changes). The ALBC is the force for livestock conservation in the United States, and listing the others would be giving them undue weight, IMO.
Okay. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Noleander, and I have interspersed my replies above. Some of the points I disagree with, but am willing to enter into discussion on them if you wish. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion needed: it is a top notch article. I'm new to FAC, so I'm reluctant to express a "support" opinion, but that's what I'm thinking. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Done, I think.
  • FN 1, 10, 24, 25: page(s)?
  • Done.
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • I looked back through all of the refs and didn't see any, but I obviously could have missed some.
  • Be consistent in how magazine issues covering multiple months are notated
  • Done, I think.
  • Again, I can't see any that are inconsistent, but I could be missing some. The only thing that I can see that might be different is in the Mother Earth News references, where some are from the MEN magazine and others are posts on the website - the former are formatted like journal articles and the latter like web pages. If you think I should do this differently, please let me know...
Thank you for your comments, Nikki - they are much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled on that as a follow-on to my "See also" suggestion above for Heirloom plant. It seems to me that there are several efforts around the world to preserve a wide variety of strains of plants an animals for future generations. Some are based on bio-diversity concerns; others on health issues; others on sentimental value (heirloom tomatoes), and others on "if there is a nuclear war, we'll need a seed bank in remote Norway to start our crops over again". I'll bet lots of advanced countries have efforts comparable to ALBC for their own farm animals. One can view American Livestock Breeds Conservancy as just one example of such an effort. That is why I was looking for a see also section, or a footer NavBox on "plant/animal breed/variety preservation" so that readers that were curious could navigate into those other articles. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enough of a coding guru to want to work up a navbox, although I wouldn't scream if someone built one and added it to the article. Articles do not need to link to every article on a given topic. The ALBC article already links to many organizations and terms that work with or pertain to maintaining genetic diversity among our food supply - including Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Rare Breeds Canada, National Animal Germplasm Program, SVF Foundation, Slow Food USA, Equus Survival Trust, Ark of Taste, The Nature Conservancy, heritage turkey, rare breed (agriculture), cryopreservation...the list goes on. Through these links, readers will be able to find other articles, such as those to do with heirloom plants and seed banks, that are really tangential to what the ALBC does. The ALBC works with livestock, so in reality, every government branch around the world that works to preserve rare breeds (and believe me, there are a lot of them, especially in Europe) would actually be more central to the point of this article than links to organizations that work with plants. Yes, they all work with preserving diversity in the food supply; however, in reality, there are thousands of organizations worldwide that do so in various ways, and we cannot provide links to all of them. We provide links to the relevant ones, and let readers wend their way through the series of articles in whatever pattern they wish. If we shoehorned in links about every organization that works with every aspect of things that the ALBC does, the article would be nothing but a sea of blue with random factoids that were added just to get another link in. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My two bits here is that is what I think the purpose of a see also section is (full disclosure: I like see also sections, I think they're handy) -- related articles that may not need to have a random link within the text. Avoids that random factoid shoehorned in just to make a link. Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a small batch of prose and formatting nitpicks. Overall, it was a nice article.

  • History and organization: WP:MOSNUM (the most confusing document on this website) says that two-digit decades (like the '70s) are discouraged. A minor point, but might as well follow the MoS.
    • Done.--MTBW
  • "while monitoring of the status of endangered breeds continuing between surveys." I would think "continuing" should be "continues" here; it doesn't read the way it's intended to now.
    • Done.--MTBW
      • And I tweaked this a bit more. Both of you feel free to revert me if I just made it worse. - Dana
  • Conservation Priority List: Second paragraph has a couple "also"s in pretty close proximity. Since the word is unneeded much of the time, it would be nice if at least one could be chopped; the one before the rabbit breed discussion looks like a prime candidate.
    • Done, but in the process did some reworking of the paragraph. May not have helped, did last so easier to revert if I screwed it up.--MTBW
  • Horses: Redundancy present in "After the rescue a conservation plan was developed and small breeding groups developed in cooperation with technical advisors." Try to change one of the "developed"s.
    • Done, but had to go to source to review content, resulting in minor rephrasing (hope it's OK, Dana).--MTBW
  • Sheep and goats: "then undertook action to remove some goats from the island in order to preserve the bloodlines from threatened extinction." In general, "in order to" can be shorted into "to" most of the time to make writing a little tighter.
    • Done.--MTBW
  • Since Mother Earth News appears to be a printed publication, it should be italicized in ref 6. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one is in a citeweb template and the "publisher" apparently doesn't want to italicize. The article itself appears to be from the online content, not the published magazine, so the citeweb template is the right one. I'll leave this to Dana to figure out, as I don't know what the solution is here..--MTBW
      • Some MEN website content is also published in print form and some isn't. For those articles that I could verify in a print form (or those I could find only in print form, ref 39 for example), MEN is italicized as the journal. For those that I could only find on the web and couldn't verify every appeared in print form, I treated them as any other typical web content, and so MEN is not italicized. - Dana

Thanks for the comments, Giants2008 - much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another lovely equine-related article. Writing, sources, etc. all appear up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Giants2008! Dana boomer (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments: generally very good, but a few possible nitpicks... Steven Walling • talk 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lede feels a little thick compared to the rest of the article. I wonder if we might find ways to simplify it for skimming.
      • WP:LEAD recommendations for an article of this length is three to four paragraphs. - Dana
    • In the interest of stating the obvious, I didn't see an explanation of why the Conservation Priority List exists/why it's important. The CPL is widely referenced in the U.S. as an explanation for what breeds are at risk, so that might be good.
      • I've added a bit to the CPL section - see what you think. There's also a bit in the General programs section about the SVF Foundation using it. If this wasn't the direction in which you were aiming, let me know. - Dana
    • Could we put level 3 headers in General programs, either by topic or date? Just a suggestion, for easy reading.
      • I've added one. I don't really want to add more because: 1) I can't really see a good place to do so and 2) I really don't like short choppy sections. - Dana
    • The first sentence feels a little off, since the ALBC promotes rare breeds even if genetic diversity is sound, and it promotes genetic diversity in the animal side of food supply in general, not just among rare breeds. Perhaps, "...is a nonprofit organization focused on preserving and promoting rare breeds of livestock in the interest of genetic diversity." Or even just "...is a nonprofit organization focused on preserving and promoting rare breeds of livestock." What do you think?
      • Changes per your second suggestion. Good point.

Thank you very much for your comments and your support, Steven. I think I've answered everything above - please let me know if you have any further thoughts! Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review yet? Ucucha (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thanks again, Nikki. I think Montana got the first one, and I tweaked the second one. It now says "This is a logo owned by the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy for American Livestock Breeds Conservancy." Does that work? I think this might be the first article I've worked on with a fair-use image, so I'm not really sure on all of the legalities. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had one on on our last big FAC too, I'll check the lingo and tweak. Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 12 December 2011 (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/American_Livestock_Breeds_Conservancy/archive1&oldid=1146630049"