Talk:Agriculture in the United Kingdom/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: six found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The total area on agricultural holdings is about 17.1 million hectares do you mean "of" rather than "on"?
 * croppable - wouldn't "arable" be better here?
 * farmable - no such word
 * About 70% of farms are owner-occupied or mostly so - can you explain the "mostly so" here?
 * The average farm holder - wouldn't "farmer" be better here? (and in the lead)
 * British farming is intensive and highly mechanised Better to stick with United Kingdom or UK throughout. Not everone understands their interchangeability in the UK.
 * productivity increased 1.6% missing "by"
 * Charles Townsend, a viscount known as "Turnip Townsend", retired from Parliament in 1730 and in the years between then and his death in 1738, introduced turnip farming on a large scale. This created four-crop rotation which allowed fertility to be maintained with much less fallow land.  need some explanation of how turnip farming introduced four cop rotation and how fertility was increased.
 * Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. This steadied prices, but agriculture remained prosperous in the previous sentences we were in depression, som further explanation of this change is needed.
 * The invention of the digging plough was around 1885. It leaves no detectable furrows and breaks the land so that a seed drill can be used for planting.  I find this confusing, Tull's seed drill had been in use for over a hundred years, can you expand a little on digging ploughs or link to a suitable section of the plough article?
 *  £4.38 billion why is £ wilikinked here, but not earlier?
 * less freely drained areas tend to become waterlogged and need to be drained poorly phrased - repetitious
 * covered pipes have been used in more modern times. "more" is uneccessary here
 * Soil temperature is a key aspect of its fertility. confused subject - its here relates to "temperature" rather than "soil"
 * Pests - why are rabbits (and other rodents) not listed in the table.
 * Units such as degrees Celsius, litres and inches should have convert templates
 * Other livestock summary mention of small niche production such as ostrich, rabbit, etc could be made
 * When EU subsidy regime changes in 2013 missing definite article.
 * Details will need to await the 2011 budget. now dated
 * I have highlighted some obvious errors of grammar but the whole could do with a thorough line-by-line third party copy-edit to improve prose flow, avoid repetition and improve style
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Spotchecks on sources are OK, the article is well referenced, I assume good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * History - although Scotland and England (with Wales) were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain]] in 1707, the United Kingdom was not formed until 1801, when Ireland was incorporated. I feel some summary mention of the differences in farming practice between the four nations of Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be made.  Also we could do with a summary of pre 18th century agriculture.
 * Nothing about the role of agricultural colleges, little about factory farming, one passing mention of the NFU, we could do with more about their role and also the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, now DEFRA - not just the Acts of Parliament.
 * Diversification a little more could be made of recent trends in direct sales as a way of beating low farmgate prices when supplying supermarkets and food processors.
 * This is a very big subject to tackle and at present we have a good start, but the article is presently some way from GA standards.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * This is, as I noted above, a very big subject to tackle, but a lot or work will be needed to get it to GA status. The prose is in need of improvement, there are missing areas of information. If you can get it up to scratch in two weeks then we can maybe pass it, but if it is going to take longer as I suspect it may then I will have to fail this nomination. On hold until 15 January. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am afraid that this article still does not satisfy the GA criteria. Issues raised at the peer review, such as the origins of farming in Britain (UK) are missing, the organisation is not very clear. Many of teh points raised above have been addressed in part but I think more about the the role of politicains and politics in farming, a little more about education such as agricultural colleges, e.g. how many students, etc. The article touches lightly on many topics but in a not very coherent way.  I think it needs replanning and most of the material here ac ne kept but in a more organised manner. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that this article still does not satisfy the GA criteria. Issues raised at the peer review, such as the origins of farming in Britain (UK) are missing, the organisation is not very clear. Many of teh points raised above have been addressed in part but I think more about the the role of politicains and politics in farming, a little more about education such as agricultural colleges, e.g. how many students, etc. The article touches lightly on many topics but in a not very coherent way.  I think it needs replanning and most of the material here ac ne kept but in a more organised manner. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Response
Thank you, Jezhotwells, for that excellent, thorough and well-thought-out review. Your suggestions are extremely helpful. "Farm holder" is right, and not "farmer", because one means someone who farms and the other means someone who has a farm holding. At first glance, I think the rest of your points are quite right. It's amazing how I don't see the obvious until someone points it out! I'll try to get the fixes made within the 15 days, although the expansions required are quite substantial and will need researching, so I might not succeed. All the best— S Marshall T/C 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is not an absolute deadlkine, but I wouls expect substantial progress by then. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding any acceptable sources for "factory farming". I mean, there are sources, but no NPOV ones.  Everything I can find that uses those words means them in a negative or pejorative way.  I think that "factory farming" is basically about animal welfare, which I've already covered in the article.— S Marshall  T/C 23:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How are you doing, shall I take another look? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel as if it's "done", but I do think it's probably up to GA standard at this point. Please do take another look!  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)