Wikipedia:Peer review/American Livestock Breeds Conservancy/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been through a GA review and I would like to take it to FAC. This is the first FA I will have written on an organization, and so any overall comments about layout/information (either missing or excess) would be appreciated. Further, comments on the number of references we have to the organization itself would be appreciated. We've tried to keep the number down, but there are many aspects of the breed programs on which the organization itself provides the most information. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments:
First, on the question of reliance on the ALBC as a source, at present 17 out of 53 citations are to it. Most of the 17 seem to be in support of non-controversial information about the nature, aims and work of the organization, and I don't personally consider this to be a problem.
On more general issues, the article is informative as regards the work of the organization, but is very thin on details about the organization itself. We are told the location of the HQ, and very little else. How big is the organisation – how many people does it employ, does it have a structure, etc? You say "The ALBC is funded by grants, sales of publications and promotional materials, membership dues and public donations", but give no indication of the size of its annual income. Is it $millions, or smaller - some general information would be useful in giving a better picture of the overall nature of the organization.
Clarification requested on the following points:-
- History and mission, first para: "especially because of the difficulty in obtaining heritage breeds for living history sites". I'm not sure about the meaning, and the relationship between this and the previous part of the sentence is not clear.
- History and mission, last para: explanation of "low-impact farming" necessary for us urbanites
- The purpose of the "study" category, in terms of conservation, is not entirely clear - could this be amplified
- Sheep and goats: "The sheep were in danger of being eradicated by a nature conservancy working to save indigenous vegetation". The nature of the danger is not clear from this.
The following minor prose issues need consideration:-
- Lead, first paragraph: the word "since" is unnecessary; suggest a comma after "extinction"
- Lead, second paragraph: "work" → "works"; clash between "the organization" (singular) and "they have" (plural); "in a little more than" → "in little more than"
- History and mission, first para: "began to become aware" is clumsy. Suggest "...became aware"; the word "includes" occurs twice in the last sentence of the paragraph
- History and mission, third para: "Its conservation criteria and literature on livestock biodiversity is also included heavily in independent publications on breeds" - "is" should be "are". "included heavily" is odd phrasing, perhaps "widely used" would be preferable
- "Under way" is two words, not one, in Brit Eng. Is "underway" accepted American usage?
- Pigs: "Breeds such as the Chester White and Poland China have had an over 25 percent reduction in breed numbers between 1998 and 2003," Awkwardly put; suggest "Breeds such as the Chester White and Poland China reduced by over 25 percent between 1998 and 2003,..." and the sentence should end with "same period" rather than "same time"
That's about it; I hope you find these comments useful. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any questions arising from the review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: the link on Ewe goes to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. I think I have addressed everything on the list. Dana boomer (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)