A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
A fact from Elm Farm Ollie appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 October 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Elm Farm Ollie in 1930 became the first cow to be milked while flying in an airplane?
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
To prevent war, the stub is on the article's belt. I'm readding the stub status of this article per WP:STUB's quote: To qualify as a stub it must at least define the meaning of the article's title. Often that means three to ten short sentences, but less text may be sufficient to qualify as a stub for articles on narrow topics and complicated topics with more than ten sentences may still be stubs. endquote. The article is (as of now) exactly ten sentences long and it could use some expansion like pictures or more details on the resulting opera to say a few.Feureau 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey @AirshipJungleman29:, thanks for helping improve the article. I'm thrilled that it's gone from Stub to C in such a short time thanks to the work being done on it.
I wonder if removing all the headings was a bit of an overcorrection to whatever issue you perceived in the article. Now it's just one long article without splitting up stand-alone sections. I read through the Oversection page you included in your edit description, and the example there showed sections with two sentences max, while these were full paragraphs. Looking at some of the articles you've got listed on your own talk page, like Mongol_Empire, some of the sections there are also shorter than what was here. I'm not suggesting that how it was is correct, but I'd appreciate some more insight into your thought process, and also wonder if there are better ways it could be structured that don't involve either no headings or too many. For example, would subheadings be more appropriate than full? Etc. Thanks for your help and suggestions!
Sevey13 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sevey13, and thanks for your work improving the article. MOS:NOLEAD recommends that if an article is shorter than a well-written lead, it doesn't have to have a separate one. I personally feel that the current four paragraphs is more readable than the previous version. However, my view is just that, and not a particularly strongly-held one; many people might disagree with me and you are perfectly able to revert my edit. Best of luck with the article! (and incidentally, referring to what other articles do is not a very strong argument unless they have gone through the good article or featured article reviewing processes)~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
