Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Equine nutrition/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equine nutrition

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your nomination, as I see only one CN tag in the article, and I will fix that cite. If you could be so kind as to note the other "entire paragraphs" or problematic sections where WP:POPE does not apply, I will take a look at those and see what can be done. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Follow up Spotted a couple area where a cite could be added, so I did. Flag anything else you really think must be addressed. I hope we are done here. Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: I have added citation needed tags to the places that need citations. Per WP:POPE, that is an essay, which "...contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (per the box at the top of the page). Meanwhile, the GA criteria 2b states that the content of good articles must be cited no later than at the end of the paragraph. The prose there I added cn tags needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Montanabw that the article is adequately sourced and still meets the spirit of WP:GA?; IMO, a one-sentence "paragraph" does not require a citation. The only fixes I see needed are a couple to citation templates. Miniapolis 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miniapolis: WP:GA? 2b states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" Yes, that one sentence paragraph needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I disagree. Miniapolis 15:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not adequately sourced, I've had to remove the Environmental Literacy Council, which is an obviously AI generated website masquerading as a long defunct organisation [1]
In addition to that other sources are not even close to meeting RS, such as: [2], blog from a commercial site; [3], ditto; [4], a dead link to a forum.
This was all from a very brief spot check.
I'm not going to review the GAR as I am involved but I'd fail an article using sources like these. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You tagged “Therefore, it is critically important for horses to have access to a fresh, clean, and adequate supply of water.” as requiring a citation. That is a logical conclusion from the evidence in the proceeding sentences. It does not need to be sourced. Please see WP:POPE.I removed tag.
  2. You tagged, “ There are numerous commercially prepared vitamin and mineral supplements on the market, many tailored to horses with specialized needs.” that is an introductory comment, and I don’t know how on God’s green earth we cite what you can find by clicking on any website that sells supplements and you will find hundreds. Again WP:POPE. Removed tag.
  3. Made minor rewording and added new source to tag about horses eating grain. Was also kind of an obvious explanation of terminology, but whatever, I choose my battles.
  4. The Foxden Equine and [Oakford sources are commercial sites, but both are from nutrition companies with expertise in equine nutrition and written as educational content, neither pages is selling a product and they meets the verifiability criteria of WP:RS. I see nothing in the GA criteria that makes these sources unsuitable.
  5. I’m restoring the environmental literacy council citation for now, because I don’t see what is “obviously AI generated” about it – I am open to your evidence, but as far as I can tell the content is accurate.
  6. the AUSPET source is acceptable in the archived link. The original source was cited to the University of Illinois. Linkrot sucks, but I think this one’s OK now
  7. I added some sources to the unsourced paragraphs, and yes some more of them are from commercial horsefeed manufacturers. These again are reliable sources even if they are for-profit cites, there is often some excellent educational material provided. Again I see nothing in the GA criteria that says a for-profit site does notWP:RS]]. .

I remain open to further discussion on this topic, but I am also concerned that you are being excessively fussy for the GA criteria – the commercial site information is reliable and I am careful not to use sites that say “buy this cause it’s the best.” I do not see evidence that the sites you claim are AI generated or either AI generated or inaccurate. Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Montanabw: In a reply above, I posted that WP:POPE is an essay and cannot be used as an argument for a statement to not be cited. If editors would like to change this, it can be proposed for a promotion to guideline at WP:VILLAGEPUMP. If the information is so obvious that it does not need to be cited, then in my opinion it does not need to be stated in the article. If it needs to be in the article to help with understanding, it needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Environmental Literacy Council' website contains an obviously AI generated logo: [5] in addition to the text being clearly LLM generated. The actual Environmental Literacy Council hasn't existed since 2008. [6] Traumnovelle (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: The "AI source" at issue has been removed and replaced with another high quality source, so that issue is moot. Please review WP:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article which describes the different quality level of sources between a GA article and an FA article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 2b. says: 'reliable sources are cited inline.' The sources in question (blogs from commercial websites, a forum) are not reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the citations, combined some duplicates, cleaned some up, found archived links where current links were not found, and found some current links for a few. At least now all the citations have a working link, except for The Horse magazine which is a print magazine and their online has always been subscription only.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Every one of those {{citation needed}} tags were placed on sentences or paragraphs that didn't have citations in the 2009 GA Reassessment, which passed. The article has been pretty stable since back then, and now the article is even better because of my and Montanabw's work to clear your recent cn tags. Each of those now have citations, and there are no remaining {{citation needed}} tags. This seems to have been the only reason for you nominating this article to GAR, but the sourcing has now been handled and could have been handled with just {{citation needed}} tags without a full blown formal procedure to reevaluate the rest of an article which hasn't changed in well over 10 years. We're not aiming for a featured article, and a GAR for an article this length would take a lot of editor's hours... on both sides of a GAR. Do you agree that the issues you initially saw are now handled? Will you withdraw your nomination?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My citation concerns have been resolved. @Grorp: GA standards were raised in regards to citations: while a GA article in 2009 did not require citations at the end of every paragraph, the 2025 criteria does. I removed some unnecessary, uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Equine_nutrition/1&oldid=1282605679"