Talk:Agricultural extension

Agriculture High‑importance

	Agriculture portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Agricultural extension was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Good Article Review; December 17, 2006[edit]

Well, hello there. I'm Jerichi and I'll be your Good Article reviewer today.

While I'm quite impressed by this article, it has some things that need doing. I shall give you a list of things to be done to improve this article, at least in my opinion. The "-" indicates that something needs fixing, the "=" indicates that it is of decent quality, and the "+" indicates that it is of great quality, but mind you, this doesn't mean it is perfect. If there is a "~" next to it, that means it is borderline with the next rating. "=~" would be borderline "+" and "=" for example.

It is well written.
a (Prose: The article follows a pretty consistant style, and seems to be written well. My only issue is the "Communication processes within extension systems" section. The last portion of it is written in an unencyclopedic way, to me at least. Questions in an encyclopidea does not seem right. I would suggest rewriting that section if possible to get rid of the questions and adress the issue of "who decides" in a less, well, question like manner.): Verdict: - (issue now addressed ike9898 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
b (Structure: The article seems to be arranged in a logical order, and contains all the basic elements of your standard Wikipedia article.): Verdict: =
c (MoS: I made one edit to the style during the reading of this article, only because it was so glaringly horrible that I needed to fix it just to keep reading. (I'm sort of strange like that, but it shows how much aesthetics counts in some articles.) The "Communication processes within extension systems" is again an issue. I didn't bother with that one, because it was sort of minor. However, quoting the MoS page, "Use the == (two equal signs) style markup for headings (also called section titles), not the (' ' ') (triple apostrophes) used to make words appear boldface in character formatting. Start with (==), add the heading title, then end with (==)." The boldfaced type there clearly goes against this guideline, so that needs to be fixed and kept in mind for future edits.): Verdict: - (issue now addressed ike9898 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
d (Jargon: Not much to say about this. Pretty much solid.): Verdict: +
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (References: Good deal of references, although you can never have enough, in my humble opinion.) Verdict: =~ :
b (Inline citations: Overall, quite good. There are a good deal of inline citations, but there are two parts I would like to see more of these in two sections, Extension Termonology and Communication processes within extension systems. The only reason I want termonology is to give me some proof that this is what is used and a way to find out what is where. The reason for "Communication processes within extension systems" being stated is listed further down.): Verdict: =
c (Reliable: The sources all look to be reliable, published sources, as for many of them look to be official.): Verdict: +
d (OR: Communication processes within extension systems is a problem with this. It has very little sources, and I'm worried that it may be an argument from the Internet and not one among experts. If you can show me some published proof of this, then you'll be fine.) : Verdict:-~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (Major aspects: Everything seems to be covered. I can't see much that was missed.): Verdict: +
b (Focused: Overall, yes. The only part I worry about is the second section of the History. Does this relate to any other part of the world? If not, is it relevent enough to include?): Verdict: =~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (Fair representation: This seems to be covered quite well. In fact, this is probably one of the section "Communication processes within extension systems"'s few redeming quailites.): Verdict: =~
b (All significant views: This looks good, but again, due to lack of proof on the views in the "Communication processes within extension systems", I can't say that this is perfect.): Verdict: =
It is stable.
(No fights, edit wars, bickers, or disagreements. Not to mention that this is a pretty unchanging topic. Nothing wrong here.) Verdict: +
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (Tagged and captioned: Good here. I can't find anything wrong with this.): Verdict: +
b (Lack of images does not in itself exclude GA: Not at all.): Verdict: +
c (Non-free images have fair use rationales: All being public domain, there is nothing wrong here.): Verdict: +

Overall, its a good article. But some more references are needed, and I suggest a rewrite of "Communication processes within extension systems", as for it is the cause of most of your problems with this article.

Best wishes, and Happy Holidays. Jeri-kun 15:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exciting! I will add references for the communication processes section, but it may take a couple of weeks. I am away from my library. I admit this section is bordering on original work; the typology has only been published in one document (NAFES, 2005), but there are other references that point in the same direction. If I can't come up with enough, I guess we may have to rewrite. I don't see any problems with the other suggestions. Cheers. APB-CMX 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. As long as a good deal of it is taken care of, I'll pass the article. However, if it is not dealt with in a timely fashion, it may be cut from good article status. They run a tight shift, so you may want to prevent that from happening by keeping it the best you can so they won't have to even think of doing so. Jeri-kun 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your new GA status. Best wishes and Happy Holidays. Jeri-kun 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review[edit]

As the result of a GA Sweeps Review which can be found here this article has been delisted. The major problem is the lack of inline citations, as now required by the good article criteria. The article can be nominated at WP:GAN as soon as the issues raised in the review have been fixed. If you do not agree with the decision to delist this article, then you can ask for the decision to be reconsidered at WP:GAR. Thanks for all the work done so far. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Extension' versus 'Extension Technician'[edit]

I have just noted a number of changes made by an unsigned user 41.204.224.26 on 01 February 2009 that added the term 'technician' throughout the article. This included editing quotes and definitions from various references. These edits are not consistent with the terminology used in the literature on agricultural extension and have resulted in a confusing and grammatical incorrect article. I am therefore removing these edits. Cheers. --APB-CMX (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content inserted by Pradeepsyird[edit]

I have deleted the entire content of this section for the following reasons. 1. It is a large chunk of the article only about India. 2. It is not formatted in the correct style. 3. It is out of context and does not follow logically from the previous text and 4. The writing standard is not very good. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agricultural extension. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]