Talk:Conditioner (farming)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Expert attention needed
[edit]The article is fine for what it is, but it is not authoritative. The matter of drying is much more complex than presented here, and so my suspicion is that this material is derived fully, or near to fully, from commercial descriptions, or from limited experience of an individual (i.e., rather than from a Ag textbook or review). For an example of how sophisticated these analyses get, see [1] and [2].
Hence, I added the expert needed tag, because there is no evidence that material has ever been added here "encyclopedically," i.e., from reliable secondary sources. (The one dead link was removed, because it was commercial, dead, and apparently from a tree pruning company website, with no current relevant content.)
As well, there has been no real content attention to this article from registered editors in WikiProject Agriculture, and this tag may facilitate such attention. Cheers.
- ^ Bagg, Joel (2010-03-10). "Cutting, Conditioning & Raking For Faster Hay Drying". Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Crops; Field Crops; Fact Sheets. Ontario, CA: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
Joel Bagg, Forage Spacialist/OMAFRA
- ^ Lee, Karen (2016-05-20). "Hay-in-a-Day: A Wide Swath More Important Than Conditioning". Information Center; Ag Practices and Trends. Brodhead, WI, USA: Kuhn North America, Inc. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Boghog called attention to the fact that the information in the Expert tag made it seem that the Expert tag was calling attention to the same issue as the "unsourced" tag. But this was not the intent, and the actual intent is now better spelled out in the returned expert tag (i.e., to make sure an ag expert thinks the article content is sufficient to the subject—as this scholar and former farmer's cursory examination of refs leads him to think not). Cheers. Thanks to Boghog for demanding clarity. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Boghog is edit warring, not attending to the fact that the tag content has been altered twice to address his concern. I call on him, per WP guidelines, not to remove tags until issues are resolved. The issue here is the inexpertise of the article content. Its scope does not address significant issues that only an agricultural expert can address. I am nearer to this than Boghog, but am decades out from being an expert. Hence, one was called for. See also here, for a Talk section, where another user had reviewed these edits and had found them to be fine. This reverting editor does not have a consensus. Finally, see here for the fact that I have tried to engage this editor on his warring, and rule-breaking with regard to removing tags without addressing the issues in play. The tag is not redundant. The material is inexpert and needs an expert. And yes, as a separate issue, the inexpert material that is here needs to be sourced, or removed. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per a suggestion of this editor, a Talk posting at Wikiproject Agriculture was created, to also try to draw editors to the article. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- The expert needed banner is still redundant since the primary justification for it is lack of sources. To put things in context, there were widespread complaints (see discussion) concerning user:Leprof 7272 over use of attention banners that very nearly resulted in a block. Boghog (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per a suggestion of this editor, a Talk posting at Wikiproject Agriculture was created, to also try to draw editors to the article. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Boghog is edit warring, not attending to the fact that the tag content has been altered twice to address his concern. I call on him, per WP guidelines, not to remove tags until issues are resolved. The issue here is the inexpertise of the article content. Its scope does not address significant issues that only an agricultural expert can address. I am nearer to this than Boghog, but am decades out from being an expert. Hence, one was called for. See also here, for a Talk section, where another user had reviewed these edits and had found them to be fine. This reverting editor does not have a consensus. Finally, see here for the fact that I have tried to engage this editor on his warring, and rule-breaking with regard to removing tags without addressing the issues in play. The tag is not redundant. The material is inexpert and needs an expert. And yes, as a separate issue, the inexpert material that is here needs to be sourced, or removed. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw the request and popped by. In short, the article needs inline citations, better writing and some photos would be very helpful. But all that said, while the article is a bit disorganized and goes off on tangents, it's not made up, though some of the language used is regional in tone and needs to be professionalized. I did a wee bit of editing, but at the end of the day, inline sourcing is what needs to happen. For a 2006-vintage ag article, it's not the worst I've seen. I don't have the time to do the cleanup, but it isn't so horrible that it needs to be nuked. Montanabw(talk) 05:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)