Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SlimVirgin II (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled
1,682 edits
SlimVirgin II (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled
1,682 edits
rmvd tag
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|16:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Nirvana2013|Nirvana2013]] ([[User talk:Nirvana2013|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Agriculture, food and drink|status=onreview|note=}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Animal rights|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Animal rights|class=B|importance=Top}}

Revision as of 23:57, 19 January 2013

Former good articleVeganism was one of the Social sciences and society 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
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Toolbox

Unnecessary attribution?

"Reed Mangels of the department of nutrition at the University of Massachusetts Amherst writes that a" is in the B12 section. But it precedes what should only be basic health facts about B12 deficiency, I think, so I don't think the attribution is necessary. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biosthmors, thanks. There's in-text attribution in places for various reasons. I'll look at that section again with a view to moving it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidsoup, I see you removed the in-text attribution. I've restored it, but moved it to a different place in that section. The reason it's there is that a lot of the section depends on her, so I want to give her credit. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Wikidsoup [talk] 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

I'd like to change the date format to day-month-year (17 December 2012) because it looks tidier (no commas). This is the sort of style issue we're meant to ask about before changing, so if anyone objects please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was already the recommended format for WP. If not, it should be. Go for it. KellenT 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parking a couple of new sections

I'm uncomfortable with the following two sections added recently, which I have removed and pasted here for further discussion.

Firstly,

"UN Supports Veganism"
"A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change." United Nations
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management. [1]
It says: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products." [2]

I think this material might be suitable if we remove some of the original research and fix the attribution. For example, the IPSRM citation is to a presentation given at a workshop, and is not an official statement of the UN. Ultimately I am unsure if a workshop presentation is a reliable source.

Secondly, from the always-fun pregnancies and children section:

It has also been reported that vegan breast milk is insufficient for growing infants and babies, and poses a real risk of stunted growth and brain development. The New York Times reports: "The breast milk of vegetarian and vegan mothers is dramatically lower in a critical brain fat, DHA, than the milk of an omnivorous mother and contains less usable vitamin B6. Carnitine, a vital amino acid found in meat and breast milk, is nicknamed “vitamin Bb” because babies need so much of it. Vegans, vegetarians and people with poor thyroid function are often deficient in carnitine and its precursors.
The most risky period for vegan children is weaning. Growing babies who are leaving the breast need complete protein, omega-3 fats, iron, calcium and zinc. Compared with meat, fish, eggs and dairy, plants are inferior sources of every one." [3]

I don't like citing health claims to an op-ed in the NYT. Ideally we should look to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for specific statements of this sort. Comments? Skinwalker (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1], International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management Report 2009.
  2. ^ [2], Guardian Article: UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet.
  3. ^ "A Choice With Definite Risks", The New York Times, April 17, 2012.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Veganism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
  • Hi Tony, I've made a few edits that I hope address your concerns. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes I link on the first reference of relevance, so I would need an example. Would you mind if we leave linking issues until the end of the review for now? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19th century
Late 19th–early 20th century
Shift toward veganism
  • I don't understand Ghandi's moral issue.
    • I can see that killing animals might be immoral to some. Milking cows does not seem immoral.
    • Why is goat's milk more moral than cow's milk?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To obtain cow's milk, the cow has to be kept pregnant. The calves are then removed, and killed immediately or later for veal and leather. The process for goat's milk is the same (though at that time Gandhi believed it was worse for cows, which is why he would not drink cow's milk). In addition to the calves being killed, animals are kept in poor conditions on factory farms. See the brief section on milk and eggs. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States
Outside the United States
Avoidance
  • One of the more common items that I think you are missing in your listing is goose down (used in coats and pillows) (and other feathers). I presume [Feather#Human_usage|these uses]] are out. Also I hear stories that horses were used in glues, but I am not sure about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you say bedding? What about coats? Does bedding include sleeping bags? What about feathers used for other purposes like writing or ornamentation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are only examples. Animal products are ubiquitous, so we can't mention everything. I mentioned bedding only because you wanted goose down to be included, and the most common use of goose and duck down/feathers is bedding. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether using one of the GAN templates would make it easier to focus on the GA criteria? I think a template would help me to follow what was okay and what not. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Health arguments
  • I would look for links for these terms that most readers wont know: degenerative diseases, including coronary artery disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, kidney disease and dementia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of disease names, food names, publication titles. If I were to link them all, it would be a sea of blue. I take a conservative view of linking, per WP:OVERLINK, and as this is a preference issue, I'd like to stick with "less is more." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He writes that vegans tend to be thinner, with lower serum cholesterol and lower blood pressure." - Does this mean healthier people choose to become vegans or that becoming a vegan makes one healthier?
  • The term Pescetarianism should be introduced much earlier, IMO.
  • Is there also a term for poultry meat only consumers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The implication is that going vegan helps with weight loss, reduces serum cholesterol, etc, because vegan diets tend to be lower in calories, saturated fat and cholesterol. The review article that comes from can be read here. The term for people who eat poultry is pollotarian, but that and pescetarianism have nothing to do with veganism. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin B12
  • Uncommon terms to consider linking: cell division, the formation and maturation of red blood cells, the synthesis of DNA, and for normal nerve function.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protein
  • I've added a sentence to the protein section listing more sources of plant protein, including peanuts. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calcium
  • Rare terms to consider linking: bone health, and for a number of metabolic functions, including muscle function, vascular contraction and vasodilation, nerve transmission, intracellular signalling and hormonal secretion.
  • Other dietary terms: hazelnuts, kale, broccoli and turnip; spinach. (assuming first use)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin D
Pregnancy, babies and children
Dietary, ethical, and environmental perspectives
  • "There are three categories of vegan: dietary vegans,... ethical vegans, ... and environmental vegans,..." seems to be an introductory level statement that should not be buried half way into the article. Is there any way to move this to a more prominent position in the text. I.e. (looking at the table of contents, section 5 seems important enough to be section 1 or 2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's explained prominently in the lead, and referenced throughout the text. The philosophy of each position is then explained at the end (though there isn't a philosophy associated with the diet only). We can't place the long philosophical discussion in front of the basic information about the history and what vegans eat. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, I have a concern, which I hope you don't mind me expressing. The only issue here is whether the article is consistent with the good article criteria. My concern is that you're looking at it according to whether you would have written it this way, or linked it this way, etc. Asking that we link words like turnip, and perhaps include that writing with feathers would not be vegan, suggest that you're looking at things you might have preferred to include. But see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not.

    That's not to say that your input hasn't led to improvements, because it has, and I'm grateful for your time and attention. But I would prefer to focus only on the GA criteria, and in my view this article does fulfill them. I didn't nominate it, though I did write a lot of it (and I didn't know it was going to be nominated until it was already done), so I'm feeling somewhat forced to be involved, which isn't helping. I'd therefore appreciate if we could just get through the GA criteria checklist, or if you think the article isn't good enough, fail it.

    Again, I hope you don't mind me expressing this concern; it's just that I'm feeling a bit squished. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy
  • It would help if you told me which Singer quote. :) I can only see two, and neither seem to fit that description. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resources and the environment
Debate over animals killed in crop harvesting
  • Tony, I looked again at the GA criteria, and they say that the main writers should be consulted before an article is nominated. I wasn't consulted and would have withdrawn it immediately if I had known that. Do you mind if I withdraw it now? I feel that this review just isn't working out, and it's not something I would have chosen to do. I'd therefore prefer to add the withdrawn template to the talk page if you don't mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First where at WP:WIAGA does it suggest a main editor must be consulted? Assuming you are correct, here are the edit counts
  1. Kellen` (talk · contribs)-746
  2. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)-654
  3. Nirvana2013 (talk · contribs)-287
  4. Skinwalker (talk · contribs)-164
  5. Nomenclator (talk · contribs)-162
  6. Viriditas (talk · contribs)-148
  7. Quercusrobur (talk · contribs)-123
  8. Idleguy (talk · contribs)-113
  9. TonyClarke (talk · contribs)-100
  • The article has at least 100 people with 10 or more edits to the page according to the edit counters. Unless there is one editor who is responsible for the majority of the edits or the content, I don't think that there really is a main editor. I don't think any single editor of this article can block a WP:GAN nomination without running afoul of WP:OWN. I can not compel any editor to respond to my concerns. Thus, the nomination might fail by lack of response if the nominator does not actually respond himself. However, I don't think any one editor should block another major editor from nominating this article. You are free not to help the nomination, but I don't see blocking it as appropriate in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought there was a "withdrawn" template, but I must have misread the page, because I can't find one. I began a rewrite of the article a year or so ago (or longer), and I've re-written almost all of it, so I am the main editor of the current version. The GA page says: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Also, I was the only person responding to your points, even though I didn't agree with the nomination.

      I've therefore removed the GA nomination tag from the talk page. If I had known about it early enough, and had known that the main writers had to be consulted, I'd have done it before the review began, so I'm sorry that I'm doing it late in the day. Thank you for the time you spent on this; knowing it was being read certainly helped it to improve, as did your suggestion for the protein section. I hope it's okay with you that I've withdrawn it. If it isn't, then obviously I can't stop you from continuing to review it, but I hope you won't. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Whilst I very much appreciate all your great work on improving this article, given my edit count, I doubt this applies in this case. No good Wikipedia article is only one individual's work. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reverted your talk page edit. I do not concur that you are the main editor, in the sense that you mean it. Nirvana2013 (talk · contribs) has made a valid nomination and you should reach a consensus with him before withdrawing the nomination. I would like to hear what the nominator has to say regarding the nomination. You are also free to point out problems with the nomination that would lead me to believe it should not be promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per SlimVirgin's comment, I appreciate your time on this review and editorial input but it does seem to be going way beyond the scope of what a GA review should entail. The review is getting microscopic in detail. As a good article is just the first stage in achieving featured article status, I was under the impression that the initial review would look similar to this. I would suggest that the review (if you can spare the time) is redone per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Thank you again for your efforts in approving this article. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. you don't like my review. O.K. I can't stop you from shopping for a quickie review. I will close this nomination. Nomination WITHDRAWN by nominator and primary respondent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veganism&diff=533923518&oldid=533381390

Leave a Reply