Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Ronaldsay sheep/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 [1].

North Ronaldsay sheep[edit]

Nominator(s): TheMagikCow (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About a rather unusual breed of sheep, noted for their seaweed diet. They are found on a remote Orkney island. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll do a full review soon, but at first glance, the article seems a bit empty, I saw this photo of sheep among seals[2], which seems quite unique, perhaps it could be added? It also seems to be the only photo that shows lambs. This photo showing heads close up might be nice, though the fence is in the way.[3] FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the first image in - I am not too familiar with using Flikr images and the uploading process. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can upload it, if you want to use it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if you could - thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go:[4] Note these seem to be in Lincolnshire. FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! That is in the text now. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These primitive sheep are" I think it would be better if the first sentence of the article body spells out the name of the subject.
I am slightly unsure to what you mean here. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first section of the article outside the into, "Physical", should start with something like "North Ronaldsay sheep are physically very small", so that you name the subject of the article first time it is mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
clarified TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and their head is dished." What does this mean?
Clarified TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the wool section so far from the physical description section? Would seem the two are closely related.
yes - changed that. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientific analysis" The title seems a bit too generic. Analysis of what? Seems to be of its diet?
The section is a subsection of the diet section. Is this not therefore implied? TheMagikCow (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a bit hard to see sub-headers of sub-headers (no dividing line)... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prehistory" seems too specific a title, if it is not certain that their origin is actually prehistoric, something like "origin" would be more neutral. "The 9th and 15th centuries" certainly aren't prehistoric.
done TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review - all the hard work is much appreciated! I will get onto the improvements. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to come as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stone for the wall used to be taken from the shoreline, but now has to be imported onto the island." Why? Have all stones been used?
clarified. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only state in the intro they are feral, should be stated somewhere in the article body too.
clarified TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the dykes are connected to the dyke? Are they made the same way?
Do you mean punds here? TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes... Seems like one giant labyrinth? --FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "copper poisoning" You say toxic in the article body. I think there is a distinction.[5]
yeah - fixed that! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment before I support, you say "in North Ronaldsay" in almost every image caption, but isn't this redundant? I know they exist elsewhere, but I assume only the ones on this island are confined to the beach... FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that does seem a bit repetitive. Removed it. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - quite exciting article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a drive-by comment: you say radiocarbon dating has shown the δ13C value, but this isn't correct -- radiocarbon dating is a technique for dating things. What was probably done here was to use accelerator mass spectrometry to determine the ratio, but that's up to your sources. Radiocarbon dating comes up when fractionation is discussed because it messes up the age calibration, but it's never used to actually measure the fractionation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes. I have double checked with the book source. Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

Source review: Reviewing this version of the page, the following jumped out at me on a first look-through:

  • Inconsistency in the use of locations, date formats, ISBNs and "via Google Books" mentions.
Cleaned up. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unwarranted(?) italics in fn2.
That is part of the cite template, in the |website= parameter.TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation of encyclopedias (fn1, fn3, fn37 maybe more) in an atypical style; surely you should cite the particular entry, unless the entries were all written by the same person/people? I assume, too, that the "authors" you cite are actually editors.
These are ordinary books, written by the authors listed. The title encyclopedia is slightly misleading. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird "=" in fn4
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unwarranted accessdate in fn4
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Animal feed science and technology" Caps?
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn17 is way off.
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn18 is in a different style to other journal cites.
I don't think it is. It just has more authors and a longer title. Should this be taken out? TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think what threw me is: Authors are "J Milburn" rather than "Milburn, J"; a month (rather than simply years, which is more typical) is given for the publication date; and the journal name is abbreviated. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn19 is an edited collection and should be cited as such. Same for fn35.
What template would you use for this? TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use cite book; it'd look something like this: {{cite book|author=Smith, John|year=2012|chapter=A Chapter|editor=Smith, Jane|title=A Book|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=22-26}} Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is already cite book. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really my point; I'm not too concerned about which template is in use or whether templates are used at all. I'm concerned with whether the reference contains all appropriate information. You should cite the chapter, not the book. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh that makes sense - I have cited the original article. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn22: Is the full date necessary? Why offer an ISSN?
Removed full date and ISSN. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn23 should have a link or page numbers.
Linked. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn26 is a journal article and should be cited as such.
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A historic Introduction". The Native Sheep of North Ronaldsay. Sheep-Isle. Retrieved 2009-04-23. Reliable?
  • Fn31: Caps?
Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn34 is the Daily Record?
Is that an issue? I'm not too good on Scottish newspapers. Is that an unreliable/tabloid one? TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "North Ronaldsay Sheep Fellowship". Retrieved 2 December 2016. Reliable?
The official breed society responsible for the sheep on the Island. Much knowledge is held by the sheep court, which they have unprecedented access to. I consider this reliable. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though somewhat partisan, to put it mildly! Perhaps you could expand on the reference a bit- a publisher at least. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the information that the source is there to support is - population numbers - is likely to be the best estimate asd these people are closest the the native herd. I have added a RBST source there too to support the claim though. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn39 needs attention
Sorted. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scottish Places — Linga Holm". Retrieved 2 December 2016. Reliable?
No and removed. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morris, Dr. June (September 2000). "The Case for Exempting Primitive Sheep from the National Scrapie Plan". Retrieved 4 January 2016." Reliable? Why "Dr."?
Removed Dr. added other source. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, these issues would be resolved before promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all the work. Am working to resolve these now. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn I believe I have addressed all issues. Feel free to improve/leave more comments on how to improve. Thanks for all the hard work. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reviewing this version.

  • FN1: You should cite the particular entry with its author rather than citing the encyclopedia as a whole. You should also mention the volume number.
As above, this is a book, that just happens to have the title of encyclopaedia. It is not an encyclopedia in the traditional sense and all entries on those animals are written by the authors listed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what it looks like from a look at Google Books. It seems that you're citing the chapter "Sheep" (pp. 723-956, appearing in volume 2), which was written by Lawrence Alderson specifically. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense - I have changed it so Alderson is the primary author, with the others recognised as the whole book is cited. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: There's no need to italicise United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and there's a rogue dash. The way you cite roughly the same source in FN15 is completely different.
Cleaned up. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: Different author format.
Sorted. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still inconsistency in the use of locations for book publishers.
Should be sorted. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7 and 9: Same book; one lacks page numbers, the other lacks the link? Perhaps the references should be merged?
Same authors, different books. Added page number to 9. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN17 needs attention. The chapter thing is weird, and the author's initials are formatted in an atypical way.
I have tidied it up and used the |work= parameter to format the chapter. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still off. Why not use the "chapter" parameter? This is the reason it exists. (Also: CABI or CAB International? Consistency would be good.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chapterized and standardised to CAB International. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: The location and publisher are surely unnecessary?
Done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN19: The "via" is unnecessary.
done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN23 lack an accessdate.
done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSIRO, not Csiro
fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN32, 33 and 34 have different date formats. Is 34 not the Daily Record?
Yes, 34 is the Daily Record. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so why is the citation to the enigmatic "Scotlandnow" rather than the familiar Daily Record? Josh Milburn (talk)
Ahh, changed that to Daily Record. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN35 is an edited collection and should be cited as such
Cited with editor and work parameter. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why not use the chapter parameter? The current citation is very odd, and inconsistent with others you use. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check "via" on FN37
Capitalised. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher for FN38 or 41.
done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check italics on FN40.
fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally: Check author initials. Make sure you're using a consistent format.
I am staying as close to the source as possible. If a name is given, I will use the name, else if only initials are given, I will use the (Last Name, Initial.;) name structure, for example - Bloggs, J.L. Is this acceptable? TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; just be aware that "Bloggs, J. L." is different from "Bloggs, J.L." and "Bloggs, JL"! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Milburn: Yeah - that should be sorted. I think I have addressed all of these concerns now. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm now roughly happy with the source formatting. Some of the sources aren't blowing me away in terms of reliability; maybe some of those completing fuller reviews will have views on this. I have also not performed any spotchecks. I hope to be back. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Seems pretty comprehensive for an article on a population of 3,600 sheep. I did wonder if the wool is still used, and where the presumably rather tiny amount of meat gets sold (and for how much). Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Johnbod. I have looked into both points there, and with regards to the wool, some is spun locally mill here, but no coverage in secondary sources. As for the meat, I can't find any information, aside from the sources given. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doing a flyby, I was drawn to the claim in the Enclosure section that the sheep dyke at 19 kilometres is "the largest single dry stone entity in the world". What the cited sources say is that it is "probably the largest drystone construction conceived of as a single entity in the world." Since "probably" is a weasel word, I looked a bit further. The Mourne Wall in Northern Ireland is about 30 kilometres long, according to this source. Another RS saying much the same is here. Finetooth (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Finetooth. I have change it to one of the largest. Will that suffice? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Finetooth (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. A very interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • "also known as the Orkney," - Would it be more appropriate to state "also known as the Orkney sheep"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense. Changed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lives on North Ronaldsay, the northernmost island of the Orkney Islands, Scotland." - but only a few lines later it is revealed that they also live on Linga Holm? Maybe this should be "originating from" rather than "lives on"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified in the text. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to live almost entirely on seaweed" - I think that we can be more specific here. The idea that they can "love almost entirely on" could be read as meaning that they actually live atop seaweed. It is better to be very explicit that they subsist almost entirely on a diet of seaweed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The meat is protected by the UK Government " - what does this mean? I think we need to be more explicit here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified, using so instead of and. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we could do more here. "The meat is protected by the UK Government, so only meat from North Ronaldsay sheep can be marketed as Orkney Lamb" is not crystal clear as the idea of the UK government "protecting" the meat could be understood in a literal manner, particularly by non-native speakers of English. How about something like "The UK government specifies that only meat from North Ronaldsay sheep can be marketed as Orkney Lamb". That is not only shorter, but is cleaner and more precise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Lamb meat and mutton from the sheep have been specially designated by the UK Government, ...." This is less clear than before, and neither version is precise or accurate. The meat has Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status throughout the European Union. The relevant article is Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union (and List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status), and whatever protection there is covers the whole EU and maybe some other countries (by bilateral trade agreements) as well. A link to the list on the EU website would be good. I've added the category, which the article lacked (unlike Shetland sheep). Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation system used, where the page numbers appear within the text of the article itself, is unusual and not very user-friendly. I would definitely recommend a change on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some extensive discussion on the talk page regarding this. The main issue to changing seemed to be WP:CITEVAR. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is an important issue so will raise he question at the Talk Page rather than here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments and review Midnightblueowl. I am working to try to address these. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I in the infobox, under "Use" it specifies "wool" but not meat. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an increased susceptibility to toxicity to the trace element copper," - I think that this could be cleaned up a little and made clearer. At present it is a little repetitive with its "to... to". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to A 2005 study at the University of Liverpool found that they have a greater susceptibility to copper toxixity, when compared with a more traditional breed such as the Cambridge. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The meat has a unique, rich flavour of the meat," - bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed of the meat. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This discovery was used in a 2005 study of swabs taken from the sheep and analysed for this ratio." - I'm not quite sure what is actually being said here. Could it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded section. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1832, a dry stone wall, known as the dyke, was erected to confine the sheep inside, protecting the seaweed on the shore, which was harvested for iodine extraction. " - Too many commas and little bits. How about "In 1832, a dry stone wall known as the dyke was erected on the island. Its purpose was to keep the sheep inland and away from the shore, thus preventing them from eating the seaweed, which local people harvested for iodine extraction." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "damaged the gene pool of an already vulnerable breed" - Surely such "damage" is a very subjective concept? How about "diluted" as a more neutral term? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was designated an 'A' listed structure by Historic Scotland in 1999 to conserve this "unique and important structure"" - How about "In 1999, Historic Scotland described it as a "unique and important structure" and designated it an 'A'-list site requiring conservation". That's less repetitive and, I think, a little smoother. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that wording reads much better. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Successive storms, the worst of which " - again, subjective wording creeping in here. How about the "heaviest of which" or "most destructive of which"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the two latter paragraphs in "Conservation" may be situated in the wrong place. Both discuss the DNA of this breed and its relationship with other British sheep breeds and thus have something of a historical dimension to them. For this reason I would strongly recommend moving them to the "Origin" section, where they should fit far more snugly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I did a lot of editing on this, and it was rough going. Whenever I make this many changes, there are lots of opportunities for me to get things wrong, so please check my edits. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, just the straightforward stuff. I might or might not oppose a future nomination of another article, depending on how much work the prose needs on the day the article hits FAC. It might be a good idea in future nominations to get a co-nominator to help you check the prose; you could ask people who have reviewed your other nominations, or people who are interested in the same articles you're interested in. I thought the article was fascinating, and a good choice for FAC. I hope you'll return to FAC soon. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the work you have put in with the prose on this one. I completely understand what you are saying, and will endeavour to improve the prose on future nominations. However, most RS on the topic use the term dyke to describe the wall, so I have put the term back defined in the article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw there were a lot of edits to the article when I got up this morning, and feared the worst, but I'm very happy with the edits since mine, including yours, including the addition of "dyke". Mentioning it once and explaining it is a great idea. It was using the word every time that was a problem, because the word means "a wall that holds back the sea" to most English speakers. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I see no problem with any of the five images. The first image is "own work" with an appropriate license. The next three are Geograph images with appropriate licenses. The fifth is a Flickr upload with an appropriate license. The captions make sense. All five images have alt text, though the terminal periods on the alt-text fragments seem unnecessary. I'm a bit rusty at this, so I don't mind if someone wants to double-check. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image sourcing and licensing looks fine to me too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This is the nominator's first FAC, and I did some quick spot-checks. Although hampered by not being able to see all the sources, I saw enough to be happy that there are no obvious problems. J Milburn had some reservations over one or two sources, but as no other reviewers raised concerns after he posted his review, I think any further sourcing issues can be taken up on the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/North_Ronaldsay_sheep/archive1&oldid=772549956"