# Talk:Large Black

I absolutely agree that the stub article for "Large Black Pig" should be combined with Sus_scrofa, and feel also that the "large black pig" entry should be removed. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the google search result for "large black pig wiki" links to domestic pig.  (Unsigned comment by User:Fishmammal 22:50, 21 October 2007).

The Large Black is one of many pig breeds, and most of the others have their own articles, as do most breeds of other domestic animals.  Generally the only ones that don't are those where no-one has got around to writing one yet.  What possible reason could make this an exception?  The article at present is a very short stub, but that is no reason to merge an article, and nor is a Google search (though try one on Large Black pig).  Incidentally, Sus scrofa is a redirect to wild boar.  Large Black is not a wild boar, it is a domestic pig, and if it was to be merged with anything, it would have to be that. Just to make it clear, my view is that this article should not be merged with anything.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree : my vote is no to merge. The Large Black is a distinctive pig breed and this article should be expanded.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been to a large black pig farm, they are particularly distinct from the wild boar, and it would be ridiculous to even think it so.
While I see this as a very short article, I would love for someone who has done the research or has the veritable sources to point out facts such as it is one of the rarest pig breeds in Australia, it is the only pig breed in Australia that can survive on grass alone and is able to provide a large amount of meat compared to other pig breeds. The only reason I do not state these things as fact is that i only heard them from a breeder and do not quote them as fact until I have further substantiated sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsah (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 

The German WP has an extensive article on these pigs under Cornwallschwein beginning like this "Das Cornwallschwein (oder Large Black) ist eine Rasse des Hausschweins aus England. Es wurde Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts durch Kreuzung verschiedener englischer Rassen gezüchtet." A good German to English translator could bring this up to a more informative article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard a fascinating documentary about these on the radio this morning; apparently they can grow to the size of cows... but they grow too slowly to be economical under today's factory-farm systems. DS (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice a couple of factual discrepancies in this article:

A sentence in the lead currently reads "There were originally two types of Large Black, one from Essex and one from Devon and Cornwall". However, that's not at all what the RBST says here, though it accords with what the BPA says.
Earlier today I added reference to Parkinson (1810). It appears that the passage cited here refers neither to the Large Black, as our article states, nor to the Old English Hog, as the BPA appears to suggest, but to the Cheshire pig.
Perhaps some re-wording is needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the first one by expanding it a bit and making the lead more general. As for the second, upon re-reading the passage from the book, I'm not convinced it's the correct one, and so for now have removed the reference. Although some of the wording is very similar, and the date is correct, the author complains that he would not recommend the Cheshire in their current form, while the author of the quote in the article calls the pig he is talking about "as perfect a make as possible in pigs;" - this showing a positive reaction. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Ermm, you removed the source, but not the quotation that doesn't appear to come from it? No matter, I've done it. The quotation as cited by the BPA reads "...distinguished by their gigantic size, they are the largest of the kind I have ever seen, and as perfect a make as possible in pigs; their heads are large, with very long ears hanging down on each side of the face, so they can scarcely see their way." It is a corrupted conflation of two separate passages from Parkinson. The first is: "Cheshire pigs are distinguishable by their gigantic size: in colour they are black and white, blue and white, (not spotted, but in large patches of black or blue), and some all white. Their heads are large, with very long ears, hanging down on both sides of the face, so that they can scarcely see their way ..." on p.246; the second is "Black Chinese; (another sort). – These are the largest of the kind I ever saw, and of as perfect a make as possible in pigs" on p.252. I don't myself see any reason why the two passages should not be cited in the article if the PBA thinks they are relevant, though the wording may be tricky; but you can't fix a corrupted quotation by removing the original source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: I wrote the above last night, but apparently only previewed but did not save the page. I'm sorry about that, it must have made the removal of the quotation seem totally arbitrary and unjustifed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to have been more than one black breed in the east of England. The Suffolk or Small Black (pig), the Black Essex pig, and "other black pigs from East Anglia". Alderson definitely says "two breeds", and Alderson is definitely an authority; but perhaps other views should also be represented? BTW, on Alderson, would there be any objection to changing the reference from the 1994 edition, which does not have any preview on Google, to the 2008 one, which does? Is there any substantial difference in the content? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries in pig breeds I think there were more "types" than "breeds". I think that the first two sentences of the history section describe it fairly well, discussing one southwest England and one from eastern England. As far as Alderson goes, I wasn't the one who added that information, and Google is blocking me from seeing that part of the book anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I would have agreed with you about types based on my own meagre knowledge; but reading Harris on the Pig (1870), I get the impression that his idea of what a breed is is very close to the modern one. He gives a lot of detail on what black pigs were where, but none that I have noticed on which of them were lop-eared. I'll change the Alderson reference, then. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Which just proves my point because it was written in the late 19th century. We're discussing what types were around 50-100 years earlier. And, in fact, Harris says "We have almost as many kinds of hogs as we have different kinds or systems of farming. We do not call them breeds, because there is little permanency of character about them. They are constantly changing, just as the management of their owners varies." So, yes, he understands the term "breed" in essentially the same way we do today, but by making this disclaimer shows that the "breeds" he discusses in later sections are more akin to types, since they are "constantly changing". I will look further to see if he has anything to add about the black pigs of the late 19th century. Dana boomer (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, I wasn't, really. I was discussing the breeds that were absorbed into the Large Black when the association was formed at the end of the century, and specifically whether there more than two of them. By the way, the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the Small Black or Suffolk Black - the same Essex x Neapolitan cross that Harris calls the Improved Essex; so in 1911 it had perhaps not yet been absorbed?
As you'll see in Harris on the pig, there were many more than two types of black pig. I suggest rewording the two sentences in the lead "There were originally two types of black pigs, one from East Anglia and Essex and one from Devon and Cornwall. With the founding of a breed association in 1898, variations between the two types decreased" to read something like "The Large Black combined local black pig breeds from the West Country and the East of England; the Large Black Pig Society was formed in 1898."
I also suggest removing the sentence "During the late 19th century, the Large Black grew enormously in popularity." If the breed was established in 1899, that didn't leave it much time to get popular before 1900! The date of formation of the society is given variously as 1898 and 1899, both here and in sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are more types of black pigs then are given in the article - however, Harris doesn't state (that I can see) that all of these different types of black pigs were used to create the breed that we know today as the the "Large Black". Until we have a source that makes that direct connection, it's OR to say that all of these different black types were ancestors of today's Large Black. As to your last point, the breed association was established in 1898/9. A breed is by definition going to be fairly solidly established before an association is formed, because an association is basically a bunch of breeders getting together and going "since we're all breeding the same thing, let's get together so that we can use our pooled resources to promote our breed." So, breed association =/= breed creation or even breed popularity. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Large Black (pig)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Will start review soon. Looks interesting!  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

comments
there is a {{cn}} tag. - I'm not sure a citation is needed there.
Fixed. It at one point had a reference, but with all of the recent edits it had been separated. - DB
it would be helpful to have a map for all these places in England.
Done, I think. The map is rather blurry at this small size, but I suppose people can click on it for a bigger image. I don't really want to make it any bigger in the article itself, because it already takes up a fairly good size area (at least on the computer I'm using right now). - DB
why is the Large Black not suitable for "intensive farming"?
So far I have not come across a source that specifically spells out why they are not suitable for intensive farming. Basically, their size and foraging abilities make them much better suited to living outdoors and gaining their nutrition from grasses, roots, etc., while other breeds fare much better being indoors 24/7 and being fed high-protein grain diets - the latter are the breeds used for intensive farming. However, I need to find a source that actually says this to be able to put it in the article :) I'll keep looking, however. - DB
why are such large ears favored? - (just curious)
One source mentions that they protect the face while foraging and rooting, which would tie into them being a good pasture-raised pig. I've added this. - DB
"The first American imports were in the 1920s, but the population dwindled to the point where imports were again necessary in 1985." - was the Large Black thriving in America? Wouldn't the breed change in America so that importing them from American would change the breed in Britain?
These were exports from Britain to the US, not the other way around. I've tweaked the wording to better reflect that. I plan to add some to the history of the Large Black in the US if I can find the proper sourcing for it - probably later today or tomorrow, though. - DB
"The Large Black is a long, deep-bodied pig, well known for its hardiness and suitability for extensive farming" - why?
Added a bit - let me know if more is needed. - DB
"It is the only pig breed in Britain to be all black,[11] and this trait helps protect the pig from sunburn in sunny climates." - does Britain have enough sunny climates that this would be an issue? I thought not but I could be wrong.
This is mentioned in pretty much all of the sources, so apparently so. I would say that it probably also helped the breed when it was introduced to Australia and the sunny parts of the US. - DB
"the Large Black was used mainly for meat production, especially bacon.[1] The meat from the Large Black is known for its quality and flavour,[2] but for pork production it was often crossed with the Yorkshire and Middle White pigs" - my ignorance - isn't bacon pork? And I don't understand what this bit is trying to say.
Bacon is a type of pork (the result of smoking cuts of meat, generally from the back, sides or belly), but there are also other types of pork - ribs, porkchops, etc. So, while all types of pork products can be made from the Large Black, it was used especially for the production of bacon. I tweaked the last clause a bit (as well as the succeeding clause, which helps to make this part understandable). Please let me know if it's better now; or, if not, could you give me some more detail on what exactly you don't understand about it? - DB
With so many breeds of black pigs in the world, is the title for this article right? No (British pig) or whatever?
In the research that I have done, I have not found another breed called the "Large Black". There are other breeds of black pigs, and some of them are large, but they are called by other names - "Russian Black" or what have you. So, in my opinion, this is the correct title. - DB
An interesting article on a subject I have never thought about!
MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mathew! Dana will probably be able to answer many of your questions better than I. Briefly, in order, the little I can offer: I wasn't able to find any reliable reference to the Large Black from before 1899, but maybe Dana has and will add it in place of the cn tag; map? - pass; apparently the LB is a foraging breed that does well in extensive systems, while others do better indoors; supposedly the large ears make it docile, and easy to contain (single-strand fencing); I think the section on the history in the US needs expanding, and that on the history in Australia still needs to be written; extensive farming, see above!; yes, you have to laugh at a sun-resistant pig in England, but maybe this was a useful characteristic in South Africa, Jamaica, Australia?; the meat/bacon thing needs fixing, pigs are for pork or for bacon, both are meat; the only other Large Black pig reported to the FAO is in the Russian Federation. How much, if any, of that should be answered in the article? Obviously, despite the rubbish below, my intention is neither to confuse you nor disrupt any process. Thank you for your comments. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Important comment I have reverted the article to the last stable version by Dana boomer who nominated this article.  Please review that version, I am filing an ANI on Justlettersandnumbers as this is the FOURTH time he has attempted to derail one of Dana's GA or FA articles and his harassment must stop now.  Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Reply
Edit warring (which seems to be going on here) is a reason for a "quick fail". I'll wait  to see if this problem quickly gets sorted out. If not, a "quick fail" will allow the article to be renominated when it is stable.  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
[1] Can this edit war be resolved?  MathewTownsend (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew and thanks for reviewing. I apologize for not replying to this sooner - I was on the road all day yesterday and just got back to my computer. I see that there has been quite a bit of editing done since I last looked at the article and have not had a change to review it in detail. I agree that edit warring is grounds for a quick fail - the article was totally stable when I nominated it, but JLAN seems intent on following me around and disrupting my GA/FA articles. That, of course, is not your fault, and if, within a reasonable time, the article does not seem stable, I have no problem with you failing it. However, if you would give me some time (a day?) to work through the recent edits and try to come to a compromise on this, it would be much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Reply
Certainly. The issues seem resolvable to me.  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, thank you for your patience. I intend to refrain from editing here until you have made your decision; if I find the time, I may make some suggestions here, including if I can a sentence or two on the history in Australia, which is interesting and well-documented. It takes two to make an edit war, and I was one of them; whether or not I was justified will be seen in due course. I'm sorry that your edits got swept away in the tide.
Dana, I invite you to note that I edited this article before you decided to nominate it, and therefore to withdraw your unjustifiable personal remarks. I did not and do not want to disrupt a process that I know is important to you, so will make no more direct edits to the article for a day or two, or rather until Mathew has finished up here. Your last edit re-introduced "two types"; there were more than that, so the edit is not an improvement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
JLAN, I never said you never edited the article before I nominated it - you made minor edits focused mainly on ENGVAR, which I had absolutely no problem with. Not to mention that I had made remarks/had discussions on my talk page and others about nominating this article for GA, so it was rather obvious that that was what I was planning for the article. I still believe that you pop up rather too frequently for it to be pure coincidence at articles that are at a "tipping point" (GAN, TFA, etc). However, that is a discussion for the ANI, not for here. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(outdent)Mathew, I've been working on your comments above and believe I have addressed the majority of them. I still plan to work a little bit more on expanding the history of the breed in the US and Australia - that will come probably tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't intend to derail the GAN of this article by the revert, I was concerned that Mathew was having to review an article that had been edited too far from the pre-nom stable version.  JLAN should have taken his concerns to talk instead of directly editing while under GAN, it defeated the collaborative purpose.  I shall step back and allow Dana to explain what is going on, and let the ANI process deal with JLAN, who has a tendency to do this...  Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Montanabw, it's not against GAN instructions for editors other than the nominator edit an article. What is against the instructions is to pass an article that is undergoing a revert war. I'm sorry that you don't think I have the competence or judgment to handle this review without your intervention. I suggest that you not be so dismissive of abilities of those reviewing GAs.  MathewTownsend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


### Update? - New Review
Hi Mathew! Just wondering if you could give an update on where you think this review is. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns above, as well as adding additional information to the history section. The article has also been stable for over a week. Any further thoughts from you would be much appreciated! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ok, I will do a re-review.
SECOND REVIEW*****
I'm starting over, rather than wading through all the previous.

lede
"The Large Black, occasionally called the Devon or Cornwall Black, is a breed of domestic pig native to Great Britain, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Essex." - this doesn't seem quite true from the sources, versions of which say the Large Black originated in Somerset, Devonsire and Cornwall Black pig&f=fal while another mentions the inCorpoation of Small Black breed from East Anglia.[2] which seems to be considered a separate breed. (this source is more vague and doesn't mention the Small Black but also doesn't rule it out.
So the two sources I have available (Storey's guide and Dohner's book from Yale University Press) can confirm different parts of this version of the lede. Storey's guide precisely describes the origin as Devon and Cornwall, and Dohner says primarily Cornwall and Devon, with some influence from pigs in Essex. Either way, Somerset is not mentioned in either modern book and I believe "Devonsire" is the same as Devon. To simplify, we could change the lede to: "The Large Black, occasionally called the Devon or Cornwall Black, is a breed of domestic pig that originated in Southwest England." That, we know, is 100% verifiable. Steven Walling • talk  06:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
"The Large Black combined local black pig breeds from the West Country and the East of England." - is this to enlarge upon the opening sentence? If so, why not just use it, instead of the counties. If not, then what is it intending to add?
If we use the lede I just suggested, then we could expand on it by changing this to mention the counties. Steven Walling • talk  06:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
history
"The Large Black resulted from the amalgamation of black pigs from two geographically separate areas, Devon and Cornwall in the south-west of England, and Essex, Suffolk and Kent in the east - other counties added - Suffolk and Kent.
Map is useless - even enlarged to it fullest, I can't make out the names of the counties.
Do you have another specific map in mind to use? I looked through a bunch of maps of English counties, and this was the best one I saw, but I could have missed something. - DB
"The pigs from eastern England, mainly Essex, were influenced by importations from China in the late 18th century, while those from Devon and Cornwall were probably more closely related to the pigs in mainland Europe, particularly France. - I can't see this in the google snippets. One source just says: "Most of the breeds of pig in Britain are descended from crosses between the long-legged, rangy, indigenous type and the small, fat pigs imported from China in the late eighteenth and early ninetenth century."[http://books.google.com/books?id=_3HZzMeMo_0C&q=china#v=snippet&q=china&f=false
I don't know. I can't see the whole section covering this breed, but JLAN said he could and that it covered the material. I can see page 27 of the given source, but not page 28. What can you see? In any case, I've added another reference that covers the material. - DB
"numbers declined as farmers began to favour pig breeds that would do well in intensive indoor farming" - I asked about this before - having read some sources, I now think that the issue was that Large Black was a foraging animal and of course indoor farming would be impractical.
I can simply write in some more detail why if you like, but the simplest explanation is twofold: 1) yes, it's a grazing/foraging breed. 2) some breeds are just tempermentally unsuited to indoor production. An pig that is selected for its drive to run around and forage, and raise its young outside, will show behavioral problems when confined in a barn all year. Steven Walling • talk  06:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
organization of history section is hard to follow
first there is a general description, meant I guess to pertain only to Britain
"1920s to modern times"
"Outside of Britain" - leaps back to 1913
"The first exports to Australia were in 1902 or 1903, with the Large Black being chosen over the Berkshire pig because of their ability to thrive in hot weather, their foraging abilities and their fecundity. By 1930, Large Blacks represented only 1 percent of Australia pig population, and were raised mainly by breeders in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania." - is this inexplicable drop due to intensive indoor farming also?
Hmmm. I rearranged the history section to try to split it up a bit so that it wasn't just a wall of text, but I agree that this disrupted the chronological flow. Do you think it would be best to merge the "Outside of Britain" section back into the rest of the history? As to Australia, there was no "drop". There were a few of them imported in the early 1900s, along with other breeds, and although breeders kept thinking they would be the next big thing, they just...weren't. They were never more than 1% of the population, except for a brief period after WWII, as described in the article. - DB
description
extensive farming is mentioned for the first time - imo it should be right there in the lede as this is accounts for the Large Black's use and disuse.
Added into the lead. - DB
(this was mentioned before) "It is the only pig breed in Britain to be all black,[11] and this trait helps protect the pig from sunburn in sunny climates." - does Britain have sunny climates where pigs could suffer from sunburn? *the "sunburn" issue seems strange, as you are focusing on a British pig - I asked this before the revert issue - are there "sunny climates" in Britain? Plus the reference you give [3] is talking about the Tamworthis pig: "The dark coloring is a great advantage in outdoor production because the breed does not sunburn."  (google snippet)
I think your snippet might be wrong, because my view here says "The breed's black skin is also an attribute in outdoor pork operations in many countries." However, I've added an additional ref that specifically mentions sunburn. I don't know about Britain vs. other countries, but apparently there are places in Britain sunny enough for pigs to get sunburn. The sources single this breed out as having skin pigment that would prevent it from getting sunburn, and it is a breed that developed with this color in Britain, so apparently it's a useful trait to have, especially for outdoor farming. - DB
what page number are you referring to, as I don't see it on any of the snippets in that link?
In any case, it's this "many countries" I'd like more info on - what were the many countries using this pig? Was  its apparent decline elsewhere, e.g. Australia, South America for the same reasons? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Page 189, the page number given as a reference in the article. Replied below on the many countries thing. - DB
I'll stop for now. But I think there should be more info on extensive farming vs indoor intensive farming - and more about the quality/characteristics of the meat. Is the breed still used for meat or is it a "rare breed" that people raise for its own sake? What are the motivation of the people seeking to preserve it, or is it preservation for the sake of preservation? Also (maybe) the article should just concentrate on the pig in Britain and then have a section for the Large Black elsewhere, as it's confusing to weave in the "else where" at point.
I'm not sure what you mean by having a section on the Large Black elsewhere - do you mean a separate article? I don't think that's a viable option, because there's so little information on the breed in the first place. I can try weaving the information on the history of the breed outside of Britain back into the main narrative...see discussion above. I've added a bit to the conservation section. Basically, conservation organizations are trying to preserve as many breeds as possible for the sake of genetic diversity in livestock; however, this breed is also good for the increasing number of consumers who want pasture-raised pork. - DB
MathewTownsend (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

addendum - what about the use of this pig in the rest of the world - e.g. China, India, Asia in general, Mexicao, Central and South America - poorer areas of the world where extensive farming or foraging (family raising animals for their own use) is more common?  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have not found information in any of the sources that give data on this breed in these areas. It is a very rare breed, and so I would be surprised in purebloods (or even crosses) exist in the majority of the areas you mentioned. If you have sources that say differently, please let me know. - DB
I'm of course not an expert and not willing to go source hunting, but to me some of this article doesn't make sense, and perhaps suffers from systematic bias in discounting most of the world.  The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy may not be a reliable source, and of course is reporting on the fate of the Large Black in the US but it does say: The breed’s popularity peaked during the 1920s, and the Large Black was exported to ­several other ­countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. After World War II, however, the shift toward intensive husbandry of pigs led to the decline of outdoor breeds that were not competitive indoors."[4] So what happened to these pigs in other countries?   MathewTownsend (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why would the ALBC not be a reliable source? The article currently says "By 1913, Large Black had by then spread throughout most of Britain, and had been exported to most of mainland Europe and to North and South America, Africa and Oceania." (based on a different source). I found another source that says they can still be found in South Africa (as well as Australia and the US as already discussed), but despite searching, I can find nothing on them in the other countries. This information doesn't seem to exist. I'm assuming the same thing happened to them in those countries that happened to them in Britain - producers switched to large-scale intensive indoor farming, which the breed is not suited for, and so they became rare (or possibly extinct in many countries). They also may have been mixed with native pig populations to the point that the breed became unrecognizable, or was subsumed into another breed. However, I can't find sources for any of this, so it's just conjecture. Like I said, if you have found something that I have missed in my sources, I'll be happy to add it in, but I have looked and I can't find the sources to answer the questions that you're asking. Dana boomer (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, could we please get an update on this? I think Steven and I have responded to all of your points above, although we had questions on a few... Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was off my radar.  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Nice job of fixing the problems. Congratulations,  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks Mathew! Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting article and not far from passing GA review. 
But I can't understand how an editor who has never edited the article before can revert my copy editing changes and those of another editor, with the edit summary: "Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer". I'm the reviewer and I'm the one that made most of the edits reverted.  See contributions:[5] As can be seen from contributions, Steven Walling (35) Dana boomer (27) and Justlettersandnumbers (21) have  fairly close to the same number of edits. I am next.(9)
I don't believe I can continue this review unless those actively editing the article (Justlettersandnumbers, Dana boomer, and possibly Steven Walling - tho he has not been active since January 1) come to some kind of consensus.
There is currently an active discussion on ANI that is only reducing the likelihood that this GA review can be resumed. 
I'd like to hear from the active editors of this article whether some compromise can be reached. I believe this is possible if dialog takes place.
Sincerely,  MathewTownsend (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew. Yes, the revert by Montanabw was unneeded; however, I doubt she meant to include your edits in the revert, they simply got caught up in the others. If you wish to fail the article, go ahead. I reviewed the edits made this morning and made a few tweaks of my own. The day caught up with me again, though, and I didn't get to your comments above. If you wish to leave the review open, I should be able to get to them tomorrow. I apologize for the time that this is taking, as I know your comments aren't that major - it's just that this AN/I business and JLAN's false accusations against me there are taking what wiki time I have right now. Again, I apologize - I know it's hard to step into a review and then realize you just jumped into the middle of a dispute. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Morning all. I've had this page on my watchlist as something I'd want to get to GA for a while, but Dana beat me to it. My fault, I'm too lazy. Also, MathewTownsend is one of my adoptees, complete coincidence - so I thought I'd just wander in. At the moment, I wouldn't fail this due to the stability, as the issue appears to be with editors rather than the article. I'm going to do a bit of reading into the backstory regarding that, and see if there's any solution. WormTT · (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Worm, I look forward to seeing your comments. I should be getting to Mathew's comments within the next few hours. As a general comment to anyone who may be interested, I did jut revert a series of edits by Alarbus which changed the references to list-defined. I can't stand that type of referencing, and changing the references without discussion is completely against guidelines. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my inactivity, I have been very busy at work. In any case, I still have several of the main book sources available, and if we can lay out any disputes point by point, I can help resolve them via published secondary sources. Thanks for your work reviewing this Mathew, even if it's been hectic. If there are outstanding issues other than the edit warring, I will try to help clear them up. Steven Walling • talk  21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Steven! Anything that you could add WRT American and Australian history would be awesome - although I still plan to look for other sources tonight. Another thing is that I'm becoming concerned about the current preponderance of old sources and non-third party sources (breed associations, etc). Anything that you have that could replace some of these would be great. At this point, I think the article's sources are solid for a GA, but if we can improve them then why not do so? Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm out of this one. The lead editors have returned.  I do think the ANI is where JLAN's behavior needs to be handled.  I truly considered what I was doing to be the best way to get the article back to its nominated version so the issues could be properly discussed.  But carry on. Montanabw(talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
ok, hopefully Steve Walling can get this article back on track after the recent distruction of the GA review. Montanabw, I hope your bowing out is for real, no more disruption will occur and you will let those involved in the article and its GA review to pick up the pieces. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, now that both Steven and Dana are here, they can undo the damage JLAN did, and they have access to all the proper source material, so I have no reason for continued involvement. Cheers!  Montanabw(talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Large Black pig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227033016/http://www.britishpigs.org.uk/trad1.htm to http://www.britishpigs.org.uk/trad1.htm
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Large Black pig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320163134/http://www.rarebreedscanada.ca/pigbreeds.htm to http://www.rarebreedscanada.ca/pigbreeds.htm
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)