Talk:North Ronaldsay sheep/GA1

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

Reviewer: Joshualouie711 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Lede
 * "They are one survivor of a type of sheep formerly found across the islands of Orkney and Shetland (the other is the Shetland), belonging to the Northern European short-tailed sheep group of breeds." A breed of sheep can't be "one survivor".
 * They are the only descendant that lives today of this ancient parent breed. Clarifying this now. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hopefully that reads better. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "They are seen as very close the original prehistoric North European short tail breed." This should read "very close to".
 * Part of the 1st paragraph of the lede reads like this: "They are one survivor of a type of sheep formerly found across the islands of Orkney and Shetland (the other is the Shetland), belonging to the Northern European short-tailed sheep group of breeds. They are seen as very close the original prehistoric North European short tail breed. They are smaller sheep than most, with the rams (males) horned and ewes (females) typically hornless." Rather repetitive to say "they are" three times consecutively.
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The semi-feral flock on North Ronaldsay is the original flock that had to evolve to live almost entirely on seaweed, as they are confined to the shoreline by a 6 feet (1.8 m) tall dry-stone wall which encircles the whole island." Here, the article uses English feet, then gives the metric meters in parenthesis; everywhere else on the article, the reverse is true.
 * The image with the two sheep could really use a caption.

Characteristics
 * "They are physically a very small sheep breed, which is an adaptation typically of animals in harsh, cold environments." Typical, not typically.
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Rams typically weigh around 30 kilogrammes, and ewes rarely exceed 25 kg, and stand around 41 centimeters high at the withers (shoulders)." This sentence is a bit confusing. So both rams and ewes stand about 41 cm. tall, but the rams weigh more than the ewes? The way that the commas are placed might throw the reader off. It also might be worth linking to Withers.
 * ✅TheMagikCow (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Apart from a lizard, native to the Galapagos Islands, they are the only known animal to do this." Lizards aren't native to the Galapagos Islands, a specific type of lizard is. Probably should link to Galapagos Islands as well.
 * ✅ and sourced. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "This led to suggestions that this may be of use as an alternative food source for other livestock." The two uses of "this" in this sentence are being used to refer to different things. The first "this" refers to the study, while the second "this" refers to the use of kelp as a livestock food source. Clarify.
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The sheep's source of fresh water is limited to the few freshwater lakes and ponds along the seashore.[6]" Pluralize sheep. I am also doubtful as to the reliability of the given source; it appears to be some sort of a local community website.
 * Uncapitalize "Analysis" in the "Scientific Analysis" sub-heading.
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "A 2005 study at the University of Liverpool found that they have an increased susceptibility to toxicity to the trace element copper, when compared to a more traditional breed, such as the cambridge." No need for the comma. If the "cambridge" is a breed of sheep, it should be capitalized.
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "This is because their unusual diet has forces them to adapt to extract copper more efficiently, which results in normal levels of copper, which is toxic harming the sheep." Awkward sentence. Also, remove "has" in "has forces".
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Studies suggest that they are can extract four times more copper from their diet than more traditional breeds." Which studies? They can extract, not they are can extract.
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

History
 * "In 1832, a dry stone wall, known as a dyke, was erected to confine the sheep to the inside of the island, protect the seaweed on the shore, that would be harvested for iodine extraction." This sentence is quite verbose and confusing. Clarify/rewrite.
 * "It also reduces the chances of unintentional cross-breeding, which would damage the gene pool of an already vulnerable breed." What is "it"? The banishing of the sheep?
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "It is an 'A' listed structure by Historic Scotland.[21]" So what does that mean? Maybe try something along these lines: "It is an 'A' listed structure by Historic Scotland, which means that (explanation)."
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There also appears to be a contradiction between the article and the given source. The source says that the dyke is a "roughly 6 foot high drystone island perimeter wall", while the article says that it is "2 meters (12–13 ft) high". Which is it?
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "The North Ronaldsay Sheep Fellowship is the primary organisation concerned with the survival of the breed and they maintain the flock book (the breed registry containing all regressed purebred animals)." Awkward sentence.
 * Rewritten - ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST), list the North Ronaldsay as "vulnerable"." No comma, and since the RBST is an organization, change "list" to "lists".
 * ✅ TheMagikCow (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that I have completed all of the comments on this page. I thank you very much for your very thorough review - something that is very much appreciated. If there are any more changes, please do let me know on this page and I would be only too happy to continue to improve this article. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is neutral in its point of view; no viewpoints appear to be given undue weight.

The version history is also stable, as no edit wars or content disputes are ongoing.

Images all check out; both fall under the CC license. Both are relevant to the topic and have appropriate captions.

All major points of the topic are covered in the article, and it is neither too large nor too small.

All references pass WP:RS, no original research appears to have been performed.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: