Talk:Pig

Firstly, congratulations to @Chiswick Chap for passing the GA! I know getting dragged to this article again so soon would not feel great, but I think that our top-level livestock articles should provide similarly comprehensive information across all relevant domains. Thus, when you compare this article to Cattle, the total omission of either animal welfare or greenhouse gas emissions (0 matches for either word) as well as the other environmental matters (i.e. the notorious pig lagoons) is disappointing. A section on genetics (or at least more mentions of it) would be nice too, but not as important as the above.

I would also really like to the include graphics corresponding to  , and the gallery of FAO graphics about production-related statistics in the cattle article. Maybe move the gestation crate image to a future animal welfare section, and remove either the 1911 Swedish image or the Indonesian one from the gallery in Production in order to make space for those? Really wish there was a good image for an actual pig's nest to go along with the detailed text as well, but that seems surprisingly hard to find. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

P.S. That image of Neolithic pottery was actually in the article all along, including when it passed GA. I simply moved it two paragraphs down when I was adding the actual scientific graphic to the section. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know. We really don't need to drown every article in images. It's already heavily illustrated by Wikipedia standards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, "Wikipedia standards" are hardly ever ideal. My personal standards are that a relevant image per section/several paragraphs is a completely reasonable benchmark to strive for. Unfortunately, many articles are not good at that: i.e. even an FA like Sheep still experiences both a lack of some relevant images (the history and intelligence sections) and some questionable image/layout choices ("Senses" being illustrated with just two random sheep/lamb photos.)

Anyway, I have done the changes to this article I suggested above by now, as you have no doubt noticed. It appears that you'll be busy with the great ape articles in the near future, but once that is done, any chance you'll be looking at the livestock product articles (i.e. Beef, Pork, Veal, Leather) sooner rather than later? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thoughts. Do remember that Wikipedia editors are all volunteers, and they all have their own personal agendas and time pressures. Agriculture has been neglected for many years, and I've begun with a few of the major articles. Even getting those reviewed is quite the challenge. The goal for GA is not completeness (whatever that is) but covering "the main points" in a decently-cited and reasonably clearly-explained way, so that first-time readers get something coherent and reliable to read, with usable pointers to the literature, and an idea of where the major fault-lines may lie. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Welfare section is now misleading. It implies that bad and inhumane practice is universal, whereas in fact many of these factory farming practices such as farrowing crates are now banned in many countries. --Ef80 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply