Talk:Meat & Livestock Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

aah! man you guys are quick! sorry, trying to get all my press reference sorted for this article.

Sorry, maybe I'll get it all sorted first then I'll put up the article. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiandamjanov (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 January 2010

Four Corners Expose 30/05/2011[edit]

Should we not add the revelations of MLA that were exposed in the Four Corners report? http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3228880.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalcynic (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a look at the Four Corners report and have included it briefly in the Performance section of the article and expanded on it in the notes!

Umbrella.Won (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meat & Livestock Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of M&LA article[edit]

Hi everyone! I'm a student at the University of Sydney. I am currently expanding this page as a part of a Wikipedia education unit I'm undertaking. I have been researching Meat and Livestock Australia for about 4 months now. Through my research, I have become very interested in this authority and their numerous functions. I hope to make a meaningful and valuable contribution to this article, so please let me know if you have found sources that provide conflicting information or any other queries generally! Thank you, Umbrella.Won (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article would be improved with further notes on the sources and other additional readings. RibbaSky (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have added some explanatory notes which provide more information on topics relevant to M&LA. I also found more sources which cross-reference statements. I aimed to find at least 3 sources for any monetary values mentioned in my contribution, especially those regarding the funding M&LA recieves from the government. Thank you for your advice!

Umbrella.Won (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 'Did you know' nomination[edit]

Hi everyone, just wanted to inform you that I have nominated this page to be featured on Wikipedia's 'Did you know' project! Hopefully this page will be discovered by more readers and inform more people of M&LA and it's role. I've attached the nomination below;

The following 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated too late and without a hook; closing as unsuccessful

(
)
  • This article has been extensively researched and improved, with additional sections and information added. This article highlights the diverse range of information offered on Wikipedia and provides improved knowledge of Australian authorities in the meat and livestock industries. This article highlights factual information on the association and provides sufficient information for interested readers.

Created/expanded by Umbrella.Won (talk). Self-nominated at 07:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Unfortunately, the article does not pass DYK's newness requirement. For new articles, the submission must be created within the past seven days. In this case, the article was started on October 29 but was not submitted until November 16 -- a span of 18 days. For expanded articles, it doesn't work either, since the article was already at 32,856 bytes on October 30 and has not undergone a five-fold expansion in the past seven days. Finally, no hook was proposed so that's an issue too. I know that this may seem technical, but these are the rule that govern the DYK process. Next time, just make sure to make a submission within the prescribed time period. Cheers, Cbl62 (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Umbrella.Won: I see that you are new to Wikipedia, and we don't want you to be discouraged by this first experience at DYK. You may want to read over Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines to get an idea of the procedures. You can also ask questions about the process, including potentially appealing the rejection of this submission based on your status as a new editor, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Cbl62 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Hi, apologies for the wrong timing of my submission, I am currently editing this article as part of an educational assignment in a university course I am undertaking. I was informed about the 'did you know' project after I had made a vast majority of my contribution to the article. Sorry for not including a hook, source code editing can confuse me sometimes! Thank you for clearing up some important points, I will be sure to implement them in my future contributions to Wikipedia!

Umbrella.Won (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. We look forward to your future contributions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Umbrella.Won

Feedback[edit]

Per you request on my talk page, here is some initial feedback:

  • First, great job on this article so far -- you are making a great attempt on a hard topic that I think is really interesting: great work!
  • My focus, if I were you, were to look for "criticism" of the organization -- right now the page reads very heavily like it is mostly using sources connected or closely aligned with the organization itself -- I would love to see more coverage of what hasn't work, why it hasn't worked, and/or why it was hard for it to work in some way.
    • This is especially true for the environmental impact section -- I really don't think all of the involved actors in the space of animal agriculture emissions would seriously believe the feasibility of these projects.... its not enough, and its by definition not going to be sustainable to do feedlot or similar concentrated animal agriculture -- there programs sound like Bandaids, and unrealistic -- I am sure there are experts criticizing the work.
  • There is no background or history of why the organization was formed -- that history of the creation of the organization is very common in these kinds of articles. Should there be a paragraph or two why the organization's funding stream was created through the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999?
  • I would love a list of shareholders or other "members" in different parts of the organization -- its not transparent to me who is pulling the strings or what kinds of government oversight there is. There needs to be more context on how the space is influenced by the industry, and in what ways
  • The COVID impact section seems like Wikipedia:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Recentism -- do we need all the details for this section? To me it feels like its 2-3x the depth that it should be.

I hope that helps, Sadads (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you so much for reviewing my article! I've started to implement your helpful feedback;
  • I created another section which outlines the criticism the organisation has received for insensitive advertising and also tried to implement a more neutral tone throughout the article.
  • I've also added some criticism of the environmental initiatives conducted by M&LA, there were quite a few scholarly articles and papers which particularly doubted the feasibility of the 'CN30' goal.
  • I did face some difficulty finding some independent background information on the origins of M&LA, but many government websites provided some useful information!
  • I haven't been able to find a list of shareholders as of yet, but I will keep looking!
  • I've cut some information on the COVID-19 section and will try to make more of the information concise and relevant

Thank you again for your feedback! Take care, Umbrella.Won (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Umbrella.Won
My comments follow for your information and action as you see fit:
  • Firstly, I would suggest that you read the article on devices such as phones and tables. This is because these devices are probably the most common point of access to WP articles and because some of the features available via PCs/Macs (i.e. "Decktop View") are not available in "Mobile View".
  • I think the opening four paragraphs, i.e. the "Lead" section, must be combined and condensed into a single paragraph - please refer Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for more information. My read of the four paragraphs is that some of the content should be relocated further down in the article under existing and possibly new headings.
  • I suggest that you review and compare the layout of the article against articles about similar organisations. For example, there does not appear to be any detail about the organisation's internal functions and where these are carried, i.e. I do not think that all of the organisation's work is out carried at its North Sydney premises.
  • The actual nature of the MLA is not clearly described in the article. The opening sentence states that it is a Public authority while its website states that it is a public company limited by guarantee which is funded by the Australian government, other organisations and by levies on producers. There should be a sub-section about its incorporation.
  • I find the term "M&LA association" confusing. Can it be removed?
  • Heading "Corporate group" and possibly other parts of the article - my understanding is that the use of external links in lieu of internal links is not permitted. However, I cannot find the relevant information in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and will get back to you at a later time.
  • Navbox "Meat" - this is not relevant to the article's subject, i.e. does not include a link to the article and the navbox content is mainly about types of meat rather than about the industry associated with its harvesting. Are there any other navboxes that can be substituted or can the Navbox be upgraded to include organisations associated with meat?
Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you so much for agreeing to review my article! I will definitely continue looking into the format of similar articles and drawing inspiration and a general structure from them, I haven't been able to find any independent information regarding other offices M&LA operate from but I will keep looking! Apologies for the confusion, I employed 'public authority' in an attempt to indicate the company's close affiliation with the Federal government. However, I see how the term can be confusing, I've edited the article to replace 'association' with 'corporate group' to improve clarity. I also removed the meat Navbox, I will look into adding a more appropriate navbox or creating a new one. Thank you again for your helpful feedback!
Take care, Umbrella.Won (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meat_%26_Livestock_Australia&oldid=1195409510"