![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Joel Bagg, Forage Spacialist/OMAFRA
50.129.227.141 ( talk) 19:26, 20 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)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Joel Bagg, Forage Spacialist/OMAFRA
50.129.227.141 ( talk) 19:26, 20 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)