Enhanced comment feature has been enabled for all readers including those not logged in. Click on the Discussion tab (top left) to add or reply to discussions.
Talk:Methane: Difference between revisions
From BIF Guidelines Wiki
Latest comment: Monday at 19:53 by Bgolden in topic Review of draft
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:: Thanks for the adds! In many articles with a strong recommendation, we add a Recommendations subsection, usually at the end. You've recommended that RMP not be used (I agree). This recommendation probably should be repeated in its own subsection. The convention is to put it in italics. See the Possible Change article as an example: https://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Possible_Change | :: Thanks for the adds! In many articles with a strong recommendation, we add a Recommendations subsection, usually at the end. You've recommended that RMP not be used (I agree). This recommendation probably should be repeated in its own subsection. The convention is to put it in italics. See the Possible Change article as an example: https://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Possible_Change | ||
We probably should add that to the Feed Intake page too. Matt? Others? | |||
Revision as of 00:36, 19 November 2024
Review of draft
To do's:
- Add links to things mentioned like RFI
- References use the ref tag
- Recommendation statement
Question: Without any carbon tax/penalty/incentive, how would you develop an economic weight for a selection index?
Question: Should this be in the Management/Convenience traits?
Bruce L. Golden (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Re: Review of draft -- Edressler (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce. Thanks for the feedback. I have added links to other relevant pages like feed intake and efficiency. I also added references using ref tag. In regards to your last comment for a recommendation statement, is that referencing the "Usage" subheading?
Re: Re: Review of draft -- Bruce L. Golden (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the adds! In many articles with a strong recommendation, we add a Recommendations subsection, usually at the end. You've recommended that RMP not be used (I agree). This recommendation probably should be repeated in its own subsection. The convention is to put it in italics. See the Possible Change article as an example: https://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Possible_Change
We probably should add that to the Feed Intake page too. Matt? Others?
