Talk:Human uses of animals

Human uses of animals has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 21, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals High‑importance Human uses of animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve : Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae ), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Unspokenreasons3255.

Above undated message substituted from

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020161216/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergingissues/downloads/RabbitReport1.pdf to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergingissues/downloads/RabbitReport1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

Talk:Animals in culture/GA1

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be doing the review. I'll list a section with any concerns that must be addressed, as well as a section with my optional suggestions.

GA criteria concerns

Nothing stands out.

Suggestions

• In the second sentence of the lead: animals provide much of the meat consumed by the human population? I can't think of any meat that doesn't come from animals; perhaps reword that.
• Article is of sufficiently broad coverage for GA status, but it is only 8kB readable prose, and I think 10kB is a good target to aim for. It certainly doesn't fail for my arbitrary preference, and it's more of an A class standard anyway, but expansion at this stage is always a good thing.

Checking against the criteria:

1. Well written: good layout, well-wikilinked
2. Verifiable: All the references check out and everything is referenced with inline citations (above GA standards)
3. Broad: Good broadness, doesn't go into needless detail. See optional suggestion about expansion.
4. Neutral: Good neutrality maintained.
5. Stable: edit history looks good.
6. Images: lot of them! Licensing looks good.

Good job on the article. I'm marking this as having officially passed. Congratulations! Icebob99 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304102728/http://www.shea-online.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Animals%20in%20Healthcare%20Facilities.pdf to http://www.shea-online.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Animals%20in%20Healthcare%20Facilities.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160923134807/https://lionalert.org/page/Lion_Depiction_Across_Ancient_and_Modern_Religions to https://lionalert.org/page/Lion_Depiction_Across_Ancient_and_Modern_Religions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made several edits to the article and Chapie Chiswick Chap reverted all them with only a short edit summary about the pics. Chapie Chiswick Chap, would you care to explain why you reverted all of the edits I made? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined even to reply to a query that intentionally messes with my username, but "in the broad since [sic] of the term" does not appear to be an improvement on "broadly understood". Leaving the typographical error aside, the proposed phrase is less compact than the original. Other proposed changes include an uncited addition about controversial uses. I already commented on the removal from a caption of the symbolic/practical distinction, on which the article is structured. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "broadly understood" could mean "broadly agreed to", or it could mean "in the broad sense of the term". I changed it to the latter because it's obvious that the former doesn't apply here. And yes, I have dyslexia which effects my ability to distinguish between homophones, and also affects my spelling (which is usually caught by spellcheckers, but not always). As for the rest, I believe they are improvements to the article, but I really don't even want to engage with someone who would react so adversely to someone using a friendly nickname. Have fun with your article...

For the record, anyone here on Wikipedia, please feel free to call me "Sparkie" or "Sparky" or any other shortened version of my name if you feel it would help lighten the mood. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a dead thread, but yeah, Chiswick Chap, your reaction to Sparkie using a friendly nickname (you even posted a warning about it on his personal talk page) is not even remotely merited. If you prefer people to just address you by your username verbatim, then say so, but your presumption of hostile intention on Sparkie's part is inappropriate, and frankly bizarre.

Also, typographical errors are easily fixed. No need to do a blanket revert on an edit just because it has a typo. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]