Talk:North Ronaldsay sheep

Evolving

The description of the North Ronaldsay sheep as evolving due to environmental constraint is misleading, since evolving means speciating. However that is not what we have here, because the North Ronaldsay sheep is still the same species with other sheeps.

And adding a link to Natural Selection is just assumption-driven and misleading, being that the North Ronaldsay sheep has never evolved or speciated into a new species. This is not good scientific approach.

The correct terminology would be "adapt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's wrong. Evolution does not only occur at the species level, but at every level, from changes in the frequency of just one gene to evolution of new taxa from subspecies to phylum. That's really the definition of "evolution" – it means gradual change. Evolution into new species could not happen if evolution did not also happen at a lower level – natural selection could not explain a new species popping into existence without intermediate stages.

In fact in this context "adapt" and "evolve" are synonymous. What I think you are getting confused is "speciation" and "evolution", which do not mean the same thing. Saying that this sheep has evolved does not imply that it has evolved far enough to be regarded as a separate species.

You are right that it is an assumption that the North Ronaldsay's adaptations are caused by natural selection – as always we cannot be absolutely certain of the causal mechanism of an adaptation by looking at a single historical example. However, we do know three things for certain: the North Ronaldsay has indeed lived on seaweed for a long time, it does have unusual physiology allowing it to do so, and natural selection is the usual mechanism for evolution everywhere else. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to deduce that the adaptation in this case must have been driven by natural selection. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the North Ronaldsay's adaptations are caused by environmental constraints.

Well, let me put it this way then. Can you in all certainty affirm that the North Ronaldsay Sheep has different genetic material compared to other sheeps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the physiological differences are genetic. When keeping Ronaldsays on ordinary grass pasture or feeding them ordinary sheep feed, farmers have to be careful to keep trace copper levels low, or they can be poisoned. Not sure how this relates to the original question though. (By the way: singular "sheep", plural also "sheep"). Richard New Forest (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and for correcting my mistake.

Sheep they are then.

Just a thought (unrelated to the article now), presumably the ancestor of the North Ronaldsay which had not yet developed digestive ability to cope with seaweed diet (which later did), would you say that this ancestor (or group of ancestral sheep) was (were) the survivor(s) a Natural Selection process involving seaweed diet constraint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic viability

As I understand it, farming sheep for wool is becoming economically difficult and the cost of shearing has been quoted by many as similar to the cost of sale.

This is even mentioned on the Sheep page.

Has this affected the North Ronaldsay at all, as it is cited as being bred primarily for its wool? Korlus (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Yes, it's affected virtually all sheep breeds, and the rarer ones more than most. Like many rare breeds the North Ronaldsay has survived more by luck than by being economically viable to keep. In fact I'd say that now its primary reasons for being kept are neither meat nor wool, but as an exotic pet, for genetic diversity, or for conservation grazing (or all of these). The DAD-IS data sheet is derived from information submitted by the UK government and I suspect may just be a guess by some civil servant. Also, I note that for other breeds it gives either meat or wool, or has no entry at all, but other uses do not appear to be options. For the Shetland, which is very similar to the Ronaldsay (but with rather better wool), it gives, um, meat...

The market rate for wool is ridiculously low: around 50 to 80 pence per kg. A Ronaldsay will only produce perhaps one kg at a time, and if you had a couple of hundred of them it would probably cost 50 pence to a pound to shear each one – but a lot more if (like most rare-breed keepers) you only have a handful: I sheared eight similar sheep for a neighbour this year and they paid me £50, which is probably a lot less than a market rate. The price for single fleeces for hand-spinning is a good bit more, but there's a limited market.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Ronaldsay sheep/GA1. 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)

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 DoneTheMagikCow (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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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.

 Done 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".

 Done 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.

 Done 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?

 Done 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)."

 Done 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?

 Done 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 -  Done 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".

 Done 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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

References

I've reverted a partial change to a different (Harvard-style) referencing system here, on the basis that the current system has been in place for a long while, and we don't make arbitrary and undiscussed changes in such cases. If there's to be discussion, I think this is the place for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am planning on taking this to FA, and per the WP:FAC a better style is needed, see 2 (c). I am making going to use the WP:SRF style to do this. I am happy to post a draft in my sandbox before going l've and being approved, but otherwise, I don't feel this to be controversial - as it is a clear improvement. Thoughts anybody? @Justlettersandnumbers: TheMagikCow (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TheMagikCow! I assume you mean WP:FACR rather than WP:FAC? That page clearly says that either footnotes or Harvard refs can be used, as long as usage is consistent. If you look at our advice on footnotes, you'll see that that's what is already in use here (the example given in parentheses on the FACR page is apparently incorrect or incomplete). It is not acceptable for the FA people, or anyone else, to try to mandate changes in referencing format for which there's no good reason – please see WP:CITEVAR. Since you ask, I don't see the switch you propose as an improvement, but as a step likely to discourage participation from other editors (not that this is anyway a busy article!). I for one will not edit any page that uses that system unless I absolutely have to. I'm not in favour of change here. I am, however, willing to offer help in adding page numbers to the refs where necessary (I added a couple as an example of how it could be done). But what this article needs more than anything else at the moment is to be written in good grammatical English – as an example, if the first sentence has a singular subject, you can't start the second with a plural pronoun. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it appears I have misinterpreted the WP:FACR - thanks for the help with that. It would be great if you could help with the page numbers, as I am more comfortable with the other style and have not used that specific method before. I do feel that columns are needed in the ref list here, as we have refs that do stretch for a long way out. On my specific monitor, 9 stretches across 30in of my screen - not too easy to follow. I do understand that smaller screens may not work with 3 cols, so I think 2 will work for most readers. have you any thoughts on this Justlettersandnumbers? I totally agree with the point on grammar - I'm no expert on the intricacies of grammar. I am thinking of getting the content all in first, and then a WP:GOCE listing to help tighten up the prose. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, TheMagikCow, I've just read through what I wrote above and I find it a lot more curt and a lot less polite than I would have wished – please accept my apologies for that, I should have read through it more carefully before posting. Secondly, I know less than nothing about FA requirements, so please don't take anything I say as gospel (I am, however, pretty sure that no-one can mandate a change from one specific ref system to another). There's no obligation in Wikipedia to be a grammar perfectionist (one of the world's most annoying animals, I know!), but at least some of the more obvious grammar weaknesses in the page should probably have been picked up by the GA reviewer. On page numbers I'm happy to help – both {{Rp}} and {{r}} are very handy for this, but they probably shouldn't be mixed. On the ref columns, I don't know: I have rather weak eyes and a 13-inch screen; bunching the refs into tiny paragraphs does not make them easier to read; but I take your point about them stretching across a very wide screen (doesn't the page text do the same?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries Justlettersandnumbers - I always find tone so hard to judge online as, well, there is tonal pronunciation. Reading WP:CITEVAR it does seem clear that any cite style should be accepted. Thanks so much for helping with page numbers and I totally agree with consistency, as there is {{Rp}} already in use I feel we should keep that one. I will look into it and see if there is any way to make columns only on a certain size screen - there may well be something clever at the template level. Best, TheMagikCow (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You could perhaps try something like |60em so that laptop screens (say, up to 1280 px wide) aren't affected but large screens are. I'm just guessing, though. The |3 parameter I removed is in any case deprecated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - that looks far better for me like that! TheMagikCow (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to referencing

@TheMagikCow: @Justlettersandnumbers: I'd like to see if I can get some support for a change in the style of referencing used in this article. Specifically I would like to be rid of this awkward system whereby the page number is included in the main body of the text while the rest of the citation is kept in the 'References' section. There's a reason that this style of referencing is incredibly rare here at Wikipedia - it is not in any way user friendly! Not only does it just look plain messy but it also means that anyone seeking to look up a particular reference has to scroll up and down the page, which is hardly convenient. I can see from the article's history that the present referencing system was a fairly recent addition to the article, probably in response to the discussion above. I'm happy to do the leg work and change the referencing myself but just want to make sure that there are no strong objections first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

?? I'm not seeing that at all. And there seem to be hardly any references where different page numbers are used at different points. But as a non-editor of the page I don't have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I think I've probably already said just about all I have to say on this higher up this page. I've made only the most minimal contributions to this page, so should not (and do not) have a particularly strong opinion here. In general I would oppose such a change unless there's a good reason for it (i.e., a reason beyond WP:IDLI), as you will recall that I did at Red House, London. You don't have to scroll anywhere to look up a reference – the tool-tip shows you the ref and the page number shows you the page, all without ever leaving the body text. What alternative system would you propose? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing drastic. Just the inclusion of page numbers within the citations themselves, rather than situating them within the main body of the text. It would be an easy change to make and would result in a drastic improvement to readability. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any really strong views, and I guess they are shaped by policy (WP:CITEVAR). Would the system proposed identify the specific page the cite is from? For example cite 3 and others cover multiple pages so I don't really want lose the precision by adding a range, say 272-4 instead a specific page to each reference. If it keeps the specifics, I'm fine with it. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with the problem. In doing so I also made a spelling correction to one of the author names and added page numbers to a number of references that were missing them. Would be happy to offer my 'Support' for this article at FA now, although it seems that it has already passed! Congratulations, TheMagikCow! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that work Midnightblueowl! It looks much better now reference wise - much appreciated. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To Do

To achieve FA status:

• Copy edit and GOCE listing

TheMagikCow (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kelping, not seaweed farming

There appears to be an error in the article, which cites "seaweed farming" as the industry whose failure prompted construction of the dyke. Actually, these Scottish islands were famous for "kelping", which was the harvesting of seaweed for the production of soda ash. See "The Dyke: Origin". Orkney Sheep Foundation. Retrieved 2018-02-21.. I'm planning to change the article as minimally as possible to rectify this. Easchiff (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Effects of Brexit?

I read this sentence, "Today, the sheep court remains the regulatory body responsible for organising ownership of the sheep, but European Union legislation has suggested that it may have to be reorganised into a Grazing Committee.[6]" Of course this is moot, with the UK leving the EU soon.

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic. Could a more-competent editor read over this article with an eye to Brexit-related changes needed? IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I came to write something similar. Now that the UK - including Scotland is outside of the EU is should be updated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 19:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Scientific accuracy

I find ...seaweed has a chemical which inhibits the absorption of copper a bit woolly. Would it be possible to give a little more detail here? --John (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)