Talk:Dairy cattle evaluation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kadebose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Quinn's peer review

 * You should bold the first phrase "dairy cattle evaluation." I've seen this done on most wikipedia pages.
 * Your first sentence is a little repetitive/self contained. Maybe combine the first two sentences?
 * "desirable" define that better. In terms of breeding, milk production, etc?
 * you could actually combine the sentence "It is the process of placing a group of cows or heifers in order from most to least desirable, where each animal is compared against the "ideal" animal" and "Dairy cow evaluations are made on the animal's ability to produce high quality milk over the length of their lifetime." That would fix this confusion.
 * "Dairy cattle evaluation is used by producers to select the best cows to keep in the herd." I don't think this sentence is necessary. a little redundant
 * when you name those groups in your lead, define what types of groups they are (like, add an adjective before "groups". Are they regulatory groups?
 * add link to the all-american dairy show
 * the way you say the last sentence in your lead sounds like the cows are high school to post-secondary education age lol
 * make sure to mention all content sections in your lead (general rule, i think)
 * your lead doesn't really reflect the rest of your article so far. maybe mention that the evaluation process is based on certain structural features of the cows, and a quick statement about how those features are good for milk production.
 * most of your lead is focused on the competition part - naming the groups involved and the participants. perhaps focus more on how the cows are judged (if that's what is important. your article so far is mostly focused on that.)
 * parts of a dairy cow - lots of pictures would be good! maybe also some basic history of dairy farms/standards would be cool
 * "Each class is made up of cows of the same breed and similar ages." --> "Each class is made up of cows of the same breed and age."
 * add link to Dairy Cow Unified Scorecard (i think you can link pdfs? if not maybe there's a wikipedia page for it.)
 * add link to Purebred Dairy Cattle Association (PDCA)
 * "Although not referenced directly, the information provided by the scorecard is used to place cattle" the phrase "Although not referenced directly" is confusing
 * in the reasons section, will you talk about the benefit of certain traits to the quality of the milk?
 * maybe place breed distinctions before evaluation. perhaps in your intro you can briefly mention how the contest is split up into breeds (and then elaborate in your evaluation section) and then before your evaluation section, list the breeds that participate in the competition. also pictures would be nice
 * generally, add pictures! I liek cows
 * i'm not sure what you are going to include in the organizations section, but maybe put this before evaluation too?
 * all your sections seem relevant. I don't know enough about the topic to know what you might be missing - perhaps a little bit of history of dairy cattle evaluation right after your intro, maybe a comparison with how people do it in different countries, maybe if evaluations are based on the products (like if certain body features are good for milk used for drinking vs milk used for cheese, idk)
 * is there any controversy surrounding this? PETA or something? Maybe disagreements about how to evaluate dairy cows? trying to find a way to include perspectives, but this seems pretty objective so i don't know if you need to consider this.
 * your article is overall very neutral which is good!
 * your sources seem good, from the organizations that evaluate the cows. I think that's alright? I don't know how that would be biased.


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The article is very neutral and is definitely on its way to being a well developed topic. The author clearly knows a lot about it but doesn't put any bias in it. He named many national organizations, which gave his article credibility.
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Add a section with some brief history of dairy cattle evaluation. it would put the rest of the article in context. also, the reasons section will be very important since I don't know anything about how certain body parts are good for dairy production. Maybe also reorganize once you have more information - see notes above
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I can't say for sure, maybe once he has more info he can consider organization
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! Very neutral tone! I think i need to work on that in my article. It really sounds like a wikipedia article. i also like the list structure in the evaluation section - makes it very easy to read

Qbrodsky (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)