Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink slime/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 11:23, 29 July 2012 [1].

Pink slime edit

Featured article candidates/Pink slime/archive1

Nominator(s): Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because the article appears to meet all of the criteria for being listed as a featured article, per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article is well-sourced, well-written, very comprehensive and has a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The article adheres to Wikipedia's style guidelines from the Manual of Style, includes images, external images and external media, and has an appropriate length relative to the topic's coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Until the article is named properly (see talk page) it should not be featured Aperseghin (talk)

Comment. That would be my call, too, judging from the talk page. Go with a morew neutral title. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't read the article yet, but I see that there are a number of one-sentence paragraphs. Try to avoid those if you can, it doesn't flow very well. Also, you might want to try to incorporate the See also entries into the body if you can. (I personally like the title, but I have a strong POV on the issue.) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some of these one-sentence paragraphs have been incorporated into larger paragraphs, per the suggestion above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that virtually all of the sources refer to the product as "pink slime". Per WP:TITLE, an English Wikipedia policy, "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. There will often be two or more possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus." Consensus in the article's talk page archives was for the article to remain titled as "pink slime." Furthermore, simply viewing the titles of the sources in the references section clearly confirms that this is the term that media refers to the product to. Upon reading the sources, this is further and very clearly confirmed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as I'd love to see this article featured, with the controversy over its title, I doubt it will get far in this forum. My advice is to start an WP:RFC over the title and name the article per the result, even if the result is contrary to your preference. That way if this controversy erupts again, you can point to the RFC as a resolution that would appease most rational people. (Hey, at least this is being handled more maturely than a certain previous incident.) As to the article itself, it's generally good. However, I thought for an article of this size the lead should be no more than 3 paragraphs? Is that guideline still in effect? (I'm a little out of the loop, but the lead does seem long) Dave (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hard and fast rule, but you're right, the lead is probably too long. It's easily longer than the leads of the two longest recently promoted FACs that come to mind: Avery Brundage & Air raids on Japan. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The lede has been shortened. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are links to previous discussions regarding changing the article's title. The consensus in both discussions was for this article to remain titled as "Pink slime."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those, however I have one lingering question. Was an attempt made for outside comment? If these discussions were advertised in a well watched forum (like RFC or similar), that's good enough for me. But if the discussion was limited to just whomever happened to be watching this talk page anyways, that's a harder case to make that an honest effort was tried to resolve this dispute. Dave (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I share the views above re article title and stability. However, there are other major issues. The lead is not a lead: it is not a summary of the article. The text in the lead should probably be the article's first section. The current first paragraph of the body of the article begins "In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers." There are so many problems just in that one sentence.
It should name the subject of the article, not refer to "it".
The section should in any case, as noted, begin by describing the product.
The sentence foreshadows a general issue with the article, which is that it lacks a balanced worldwide view of the subject.
There is no citation for this important claim.

The whole article has issues with being anti-product POV. For example "In fact by June 2012, forty-seven of fifty states declined to purchase any pink slime for the 2012–2013 school year while North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa chose to continue buying it." Listen carefully to the way the "in fact" at the start of that sentence is used to 'amp up' the sense of how important it is that the product has been rejected. Consider the next sentence, saying how the industry "have attempted to address public concern by citing what the meat industry describes as inaccuracies in the media accounts of how LFTB is produced". Not the use of "have attempted", clearly implying failure and "what the industry describes as innacuracies", implying that they are not. A later example: the article says "It has been described as "essentially scrap meat pieces compressed together and treated with an antibacterial agent."" Well yes it has - by a journalist from a second rate news outlet I've never heard of. And again later: "In the U.S., beef can be labeled "100 percent ground beef" even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime". Note the use of "even if", which implies the claim is wrong: clear POV. The FDA, if I understand it correctly, defines the product as beef, and it has certainly been ground (as well as pulped, gassed, mashed and god knows what else). And the allowance of labelling such as this example, exasperating though it is, is hardly confined to this product. I'm happy for lobby groups to say "even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime" and more power to them - but not our article. I've reviewed nearly a hundred GA candidates over the years and I don't know how this got through. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update – The article's lead has been revised to reflect and summarize the contents of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that isn't my view. This will (hopefully) continue to be addressed at the GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For information, I have commenced a GAR here. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree And noting also comments at the GAR. Collect (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I commend Hamiltonstone for launching the GAR and have commented there. IMO this is not even a Good Article at present, and it is completely unsuitable to be a Featured Article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that mass media continues to refer to the product as "pink slime." Examples include:

"Pink slime saga boosts beef exports". The Australian. June 19, 2012. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
Siefer, Ted (July 10, 2012). "School board votes to donate 'pink slime'". Union Leader (New Hampshire). Retrieved July 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Glen, Barb (June 22, 2012). "Lessons learned for Cargill in pink slime's 'ick' factor". The Western Producer. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
Rickerl, Stephen (July 15, 2012). "'Pink slime' additive doesn't cause outcry in local schools". The Southern Illinoisan. Retrieved July 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Wessler, Brett (June 25, 2012). "Former BPI employee plans lawsuit for pink slime frenzy". Drovers/CattleNetwork Magazine. Retrieved July 18, 2012.

Per WP:COMMONNAMES, part of Wikipedia's policy page for Article titles, it appears that the article's title is appropriate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and as I indicated here, it is not that straightforward. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Most, if not all of the concerns in the GA reassessment have been addressed/corrected as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.