Talk:Premastication/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall effective prose. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The headers under "Health" should not use bulleted lists when the information is more easily read as plain paragraphs. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Changed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Changes to lead section now make it comply (see correspondence below). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Adequately formatted and reliable sources. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Reliable sources but on closer inspection there are numerous formatting errors and omissions: Ref 13 requires some formatting. Noticed a few of the publications lack italics (Daily Mail, New York Times). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Ref 27 lacks a publication. 22 has a formatting error. Numerous other sources have some odd formatting quirks as well that require fixing; some finish with commas, others don't have any punctuation at their end. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Many sources, which significantly includes book sources, lack page references. For instance, the book Food and Nutrition in Fiji -- from examining the linked page, I assume the section of relevance is 331–392, but the book is ~500 pages. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Applied some citation needed templates that indicate a statement requires a citation. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Missing citations provided. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	This source is the sole citation for the claim that a disadvantage of premastication is the transferral of dental cavities. This is original research, because the claim does not specifically mention premastication (and neither does the study that this newspaper source originates from, which should be the referecence used anyway). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Source replacement now suggests a link. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is a notable lack of information about animals. Clearly this is a process widely replicated in the animal kingdom, and a lack of discussion of this means that the article fails to address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, the history of the process in humans is absent, although it would clearly possess a historical aspect. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC) New additions successfully cover the prior omissions. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) This source "Premastication". Maternal & Child NutritionVolume 6, Issue 1. would be very useful for information about how many of the specifics of premastication are currently unknown and require further investigation. Currently the article creates the assumption that this is the case through "likely" etc., but doesn't actually acknowledge the gap. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) New additions mean that the article does now address the "main aspects". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Currently fails to address the main aspects of the topic. The main content of the topic is incorrectly formatted in a bulleted list, when it would be better rendered as plain paragraphs. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Significant additions now mean the article addresses the main topic; formatting has been corrected; lead section has been re-dressed. No further issues. Final assessment: Pass. — MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Further comments: The additions are very successful and substantial. But I have since discovered a few more things, so my initial impressions have been expanded upon.

• "Culture" requires a new name so as to not be confused with "History and culture": possibly "In popular culture"? Or integrated with the aforementioned section, if appropriate. In addition to this, a quick Google search pulled up a vast number of different sources that offer perspectives on that event. Should reflect the scale of the response (i.e., it wasn't just the Daily Mail).
• "Kiss precursor" could be integrated with (either under a seperate subheader or merged) "Behavioural roots"; they seem to be addressing roughly the same area. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even further comments: Recent additions are successful in remedying my concerns. A few more things:

• The lede of the article should not contain any original content, i.e., content which is not replicated in the main body of the article. From "Many Western societies ..." to "... foreign cultures." is not included in the "History and culture" section, which it should be.
• Another issue with the lede is that it fails to summarise the main points of the article. I would suggest a format as in: define the term; it has behavioural roots; continues throughout human history to the present day; disputed health benefits and drawbacks. Just a sentence on each main header of the article really. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Further edits to the article:

• Lead paragraph no longer has content not included in main paragraph.
• Article is now summerized to in the lead paragraph.
• Our exchange in review of the article; the author respones and reviewer feedback, which was in User talk:MasterOfHisOwnDomain is reproduced in full below: Jeanpetr (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Responses

I've made modifications in regards to your recommandations stated in Talk:Premastication:

1. (Response to 1B)The bullets are removed and the text is now in paragraph form.
2. (Response to 3A)Two new sections have been included to address the lack of info on animal origins/participation in premastication and also information on the human history of the practice. Note, for the latter there is very sparse information regarding this practice in reliable sources. Jeanpetr (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

More modifications:

1. Kiss Precursor has now been moved into "Behavioural Roots" and modified accordingly
2. Culture has been renamed "Popular culture" and 4 additional citations have been provided. I think the A. Silverstone's mention is sufficient as is. The 2 sentences in the section has been "extensively negotiated" to it's present form with another person. Jeanpetr (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've reformated several of the citations, the names of the journals were put as "publisher", which made them non-italisized.
• Ref 27 and 22 have been fixed
• For the punctuation at the end, I'm not sure I see any of the problems. Some of the citations end in a DOI ref, which makes it seem like it's ending in a comma. Is this what you mean?
• For the book pages references. I'm doing it not from a literature citation background but rather from the engineering side which do not require page in citations. I will correct any that you point out.
• The cavity inducing claim citation has been changed to not point to the correct article.
• I have included the citation for [1] of Aggett in the Health section, stating that this still an areas of active research and that there appears to be benefit, at least nutritionally, to the practice.

Tell me what you think Jeanpetr (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede adequately sums up the content and does not have content not replicated in the body of the text. I will check everything, but I think that may conclude my concerns about the article, and it might be ready to pass GAN. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)