Talk:Pink slime/GA2

This has been re-listed for community evaluation at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pink slime/1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I don't believe this article meets all the good article criteria. I am not considering the issue of the article name - that is being discussed elsewhere. Areas I believe it currently fails:

1(b)

The lead is not a summary of the article.
I don't believe it complies with the 'words to watch' section of the style guide. See in particular "Expressions of doubt" and "Synonyms for said". Examples:

"in an attempt to allay what they called "inaccurate information" that they claimed as having caused "an unnecessary panic among consumers.""

2(b)

The article does not provide adequate citations for all key claims. Examples:

One of the very few facts relevant to outside the USA is that the product is banned in the UK. But the source is a Yahoo blogger. This major factual claim needs a serious source - for something this important, on a subject this controversial, i wouldn't accept anything less than a UK regulator's statement / regulation / directive, or a peer-reviewed article.
"The New York City Department of Education announced plans to phase out pink slime (following a letter from Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer urging the department to do so)" - what makes "The Gothamist" a reliable source?
No citation at all for two major para lead sentences: "In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers.", and "Media reporting dramatically reduced its acceptance as an additive to ground beef, leading many retailers and wholesalers to stop using the product, or to label their meats "pink slime-free.""

3

While I'm happy to hear other editors' views, it doesn't seem to me to have a worldwide view of the subject. It would be ok if the article was 2012 US pink slime controversy, but as a food product article, it doesn't seem adequate, and therefore not "broad in its coverage" (GA criterion 3).

4

The article is biased. Examples: (some duplicated from my comments at the FAC):

"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.
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". Note the use of "have attempted", clearly implying failure, and "what the industry describes as innacuracies", implying that they are not.
The article says "It has been described as "essentially scrap meat pieces compressed together and treated with an antibacterial agent."" That is true, but it is by a journalist from a second rate news outlet. In a controversy like this, it is always possible to search around for news media sources that are happy to sensationalise a story. In these cases, higher quality sources need to be used.
"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. 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.
Zirnstein and Custer's opposition to the products approval (their argument that it is a "salvage product") is quoted twice at different points in the article.
"The pink slime stories were reported to have led to increased business in small neighborhood markets, as customers "don't want to eat 'lean finely textured beef.'"". First of all the sentence should say reported by whom. And if it did, it would be a salutary lesson in this article's bias. Because it was reported in the Concord Monitor. I had to look up Concord to find out where it was, and I still don't know because the US is filled with towns of that name. And the actual source of the claim? A guy who cuts meat behind the counter of a local store.
The article refers to "the pink slime affair". "Affair" is generally understood to be a term that connotes a scandal of some sort. And this is not. It is an article about a meat product, not a political scandal.
We are told the party affiliation of political representatives involved in the issue. This seems also to be POV as I cannot see why their party affiliation is relevant to an article about a food product. Their state of origin, yes, because it appears linked to food production etc, but not party.
"U.S. consumers have expressed concerns that ground beef which contains pink slime is not labeled as such, and that consumers are currently unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to this lack of product labeling." This wording would lead the reader to believe that there was some fairly authoritative source representing consumers that had put out a public statement, or something similar. In fact, the accurate wording would be something like "ABC news reported getting lots of calls from worried consumers after they ran a program which told them that they were secretly being fed "low-grade trimmings [that] come from the most contaminated parts of the cow". I've seen this kind of current affairs media tactic in action in other contexts, and it is no basis for claims in an encyclopedia.
Given the number of sources used for this article, it is concerning the choice of articles that have not been drawn upon - articles that are more neutral about the subject and which consider the debate to be over-rated, and concerns about the product to be misplaced. See for example:

Bloomberg piece The Sliming of Pink Slime's Creator
LA Times Pink slime perspective
Note from these and other sources that there is scepticism - or at least a sense of perspective - from public interest groups like Centre for Science in the Public Interest (though I'm yet to find fact sheets etc directly released by them).

Other minor issues:

"Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, called upon the USDA to institute mandatory labeling guidelines for ground beef sold in supermarkets, so consumers can make informed purchasing decisions." It isn't clear from this sentence that his call was actually linked to 'pink slime', but my main concern is that this isn't really that notable. I don't know what politics is like in the states, but in Australia, politicians go around saying stuff all the time. One politician saying something just isn't notable. If it were a congressional committee, a caucus, or a state legislature, that would be different.
Prose is supposed to be clear and concise (criterion 1(a)). There is repetition (one example listed above). Also, para two of body text says "Widespread public attention was drawn to the product in March 2012 by a series of reports at ABC News, which reported at that time that 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained the product." then para one of controversy section says "Public attention was drawn to the product in March 2012 by a series of reports at ABC News, which reported at that time that 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained pink slime".
Citation 62 ("to our customers") - the cite doesn't tell us what company it is actually from.

hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In the process of your assessment of the Pink slime article, perhaps consider being bold by also improving the article with editing, per your own suggestions at this very discussion you initiated. This would help to build the encyclopedia. Also, (prior to this nomination for reassessment), this article has already been nominated for featured article status, perhaps consider responding there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In answer to your question, no, not to discount the nomination. It would have been regarded as bad form of me to have started a GAR and not said so at FAC. I review articles at FAC periodically. I've mostly been working on reviewing Istanbul, Maya Angelou and a couple of others that were recently promoted, for example. But I used to be a very regular GA reviewer. I was concerned, when I read Pink slime, that it didn't meet the GA criteria. I don't mind how it gets improved, and if it can meet both GA and FAC, that's fantastic, but i don't think it's close at present. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second version of the above post, re responding at FA - i have made comments there, but the issue would remain that, if it were not promoted at FAC, it would still be assessed as GA, and I don't think that is correct. But it is possible that editors will respond to the GAR issues and resolve them. I don't wish to prejudge that, though I think there is a lot of work going to be involved. Still, there are several editors active on the article, and your work is certainly prolific. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about the article itself? Perhaps consider working to improve the article. This article has significant potential to become a Featured article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confining myself to administering the GAR and, where appropriate, engaging in the FAC. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "article" was made highly polemic at the end of March 2012, and toned down a bit after struggles with one or more editors. It retains a lot of the "let's bash this topic into the ground"-type wording, and if one looks at the redirects placed by a primary writer of this article, one gets the further impression that it was never meant to meet NPOV. (Soylent pink as one example.) The "aim" of the article is clear, and though the topic of LFTB was a "nine days wonder", the article fails to meet NPOV which is an absolute requirement for all articles. Collect (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remember when he tried to introduce "pulverized cow anus" into the article as a synonym? --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Who are you specifically referring to? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and stick to just the GAR on this page. Not you Northamerica i don't think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone is right, I shouldn't have introduced personalities into this discussion. (Not NorthAmerica; the link makes it clear who I was talking about.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been watching this article for months, mainly to try to keep out the more hysterical of the anti-product edits that keep being made. (The main anti-product editor says that they are just trying to overcome a pro-product bias that used to exist in the article.) I did try for a while to improve the article, but eventually gave up except for watchful monitoring. This is not a Good Article at present, mainly due to persistent POV issues as noted above, as well as serious problems with style and sourcing. And even if it is deemed to be a Good Article at a particular point in time, I doubt if it would remain one for very long. As for Featured Article, when I saw that nomination I actually laughed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment above, could you be more specific about problems you perceive about the sourcing in the article? Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per point 2b above, there are some key claims that are not sourced. Look, the references are great for an ordinary article, but a Good Article is not an ordinary article. The designation Good Article is not easily won. For the only Good Article I worked on, it was already in good shape when nominated, but it took a team of four of us three months to follow several rounds of detailed suggestions from the GA reviewer, before it was finally approved. I believe that is typical of the GA review process. The reviewer gives the article a really detailed, thorough analysis, and the reviewer's objections/suggestions are met - not by arguing with them, but by following them. It takes WORK to convert an article into a Good Article. I have never seen a GA review process like this one had - just "check, check, check, OK, good to go." --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Most, if not all of the concerns in the above review have been addressed/corrected as of the time of this post. I disagree with the characterization in point #4 above of the source "USDA defends 'pink slime,' calls filler safe." from Azfamily.com as "by a journalist from a second rate news outlet" in the above treatise. The source is copyrighted to KTVK, Inc., a subsidiary of Belo Corporation. Belo Corporation is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Point #3 of the above review seems to be a personal synthesis of Criteria #3 of Wikipedia's Good article criteria, because the article actually does adhere to the principles of addressing the main aspects of the topic while also staying focused on the topic, without going into unnecessary detail, per the actual GA criteria. Also, in the Overview section of the article, information about how this product relates to laws and food governance in the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada is included. This serves to present a "globalized" view of the subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above this section, the article will never meed NPOV until it is properly named. I agree with everything in the assessment and im very happy to see the POV bits being removed. Aperseghin (talk) 18:12, 19 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. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
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, the article's title is appropriate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 19 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) 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN HAS MASS MEDIA been a reliable source.. BOTH those discussion happened during a time of SENSATIONALIZED by the MASS MEDIA. Im really getting tired of reading the "Mass media refers to it as this" and "the last discussions ended this way.." the point is that its POV PERIOD ! MASS MEDIA is not a source of reference or an expert in the subject. If you want to know what the correct name for a widget is you ask someone in the widget field, not a news reporter or internet blogger. You cane cite news stations and organizations until your blue in the face, mass media still calls the Higgs Boson a "God Particle".. Aperseghin (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish semi-literate comments such as these and their creators would realize that we do things based on reliable sources and the newspapers, a medium will always be trusted here. The discussion did end that way and that was the community decision, this project is based on consensus. The Pro-PinkSlime zealots need to get off Wikipedia already, can we do a check user? I bet a lot of these edits are still coming from Des Moines (BPI) and Pennsylvania (API).LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. Just because people are trying to make this article neutral does not make them "pro-pink slime zealots"; it makes them Wikipedians trying to defend the Five Pillars which include "neutral point of view" as well as "interacting with each other in a respectful and civil manner". --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. Reliable sourcing is not a simple matter. It involves judgements, and those judgements do have to be carefully made when a topic is one of intense public controversy. Our policies are not an opportunity to be naive about how the media works. Outlets quote other outlets rather than do their own research - this causes errors to be repeated and multiple. Editors favour controversial stories to tame ones. This causes filtering of what facts are included, and encourages editors (and therefore sometimes journalists) to seek out an "angle". This then colours the story. Spokespeople are busy trying to put their spin on an issue, but then they get selectively quoted, which puts a different spin on the spin... and so it goes on. Newsmedia must be relied on in an intelligent way, and with great caution in cases such as the pink slim controversy. We don't rely on minor outlets that are contradicted by major outlets, and we don't rely on any of them if a better source is available. Etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break for separate comments

I will be adding some other issues for the GAR and wanted to keep them separate from the above.

The structure of the article remains inadequate. The lead is still not a lead. It refers to alternative names for the product but these are not properly discussed in the body text of the article. It says "known officially in the meat processing industry as lean finely textured beef", but it is not only the industry that uses the term - it is also used by the USDA. This is both not a summary, and not accurate. The second para defines and describes the product. This does not appear to be a summary version of article body text - indeed the article body text lacks a coherent and comprehensive section on the product's definitino etc (see also below). The lead says "...allows the small amounts of lean beef to be separated from the fat...", but I can't find a reference in the body text to the fact that the amounts of lean beef are small. The third para of the lead is better, though the sentence "It gave a tour of its remaining plant to reporters and politicians." can be omitted as unimportant, as can the body text on the same subject (see below).
The first major section of the body text must describe the product. For GA it must do so thoroughly and with all major points traced to reliable sources. For FA (I note this only because of the FA nom) it must be done comprehensively. It isn't done to either level at present. Information about the product's definition, history, manufacturing processes, nutrition, distribution and use should be the main content of the article. The controversy about it cannot overshadow that key content (as it currently does).
Article structure has other issues. "Initial USDA response" is a two sentence sub-section. The second of the sentences isn't even structured as a sentence (it begins with "And").
There is no coherence to the flow of sections in at least one spot: "effect on the meat industry" is followed by "politician and media plant tour".
The section on the plant tour is generally unnecessary detail (one of the most obvious examples of WP:RECENTISM in the article, and contains a sentence that makes no sense: "Not all commentators accepted the new promotion".
The section "Abstention and product divestment" is far too long and goes into too much detail. Just to pre-empt one objection: this is not a complaint about total article length on WP; it is an indication that the detail is not of encyclopedic merit and it unbalances the article.
Ditto "In mass media". This is an article about a food product and no-one cares what a comedian came up with on some TV show. Delete it. Ditto AP review. The only reason such material should be kept is if it had a major bearing on policy and regulatory outcomes for the product. As such, I would rate the Jamie Oliver incident as the only one worthy of retention (though I accept I have not read all the sources), and it should be integrated into the account of the controversy's historical course, as his show was one of the key events that gave the opposition to the product its momentum. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to the above critique

I removed one "source" as it happened to use Wikipedia as a source <g> which means it fails WP:RS at the start. I fear some other "sources" fall in the same category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Jon Stewart reference. I agree it does not belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede and overview sections have been revised, so that the lede summarizes the article and the overview section summarizes the overall topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted information that was in the "Initial USDA response" section is a verbatim quote from the USDA Blog. It would be highly inappropriate to change its wording. This is how the USDA blog published the information. This information has been moved to the article's Overview section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The order of sections in the Controversy section of the article is functional, and has a coherent flow. The subsection titled "Effect on the meat industry" refers to how the controversy affected various aspects of the meat industry, including BPI's decision that it would suspend operations at three of its four plants. The following subsection titled "Politician and media plant tour" has information about the tour that occurred after the suspension of operations at three out of four BPI plants, which occurred by and in-large due to the controversy. Quite well-ordered chronologically, actually. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Abstention and product divestment" section is actually relatively concise compared to the amount of reliable sources and topic-diversity in the sources that cover this matter. The section is well-organized by organization/company type (food manufacturers, grocery retailers, restaurants and public schools), and includes a short section about the effect that abstention and product divestment has had upon production of the product. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the statement in the above critique regarding the "In mass media" section is subjective: "...no-one cares what a comedian came up with on some TV show." Wikipedia articles are based upon coverage in reliable sources. However, another user has removed information about Jon Stewart's bit about the product. I don't recall if this was covered by reliable sources, or just quoted from primary sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been edited to address the concerns in the first point of the above critique, and more reliable sources have been added to verify information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The plant tour has received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Due to this coverage, and to present an unbiased article that is comprehensive about the topic, this section enhances, rather than detracts from the article. The sentence "Not all commentators accepted the new promotion" has been removed, because the author of the article that the sentence was sourced to wasn't on the actual tour. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hamiltonstone, I have not seen you comment with regard to GA criterion #5, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." In fact the main reason I Watchlist this article is to deal with the frequent disputed additions and conflicts over the material. Is this an issue in your opinion? --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been rather stable for a while. In the past there were some disputes and differences of opinion about its content, but that appears to be in the past at this time. I've taken significant efforts to improve this article to a neutral point of view. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issue of the article's name, I don't think stability is a big enough issue to bar it from reaching GA, BUT neutrality has certainly been an issue that triggers the edit wars etc, and that is why I have concentrated on neutrality, structure and balance. If those issues are resolved I think it is less likely to trigger disputes. I think many of Northamerica's edits have indeed made some material more neutral, but the big picture issues are not being tackled, in my view. Northamerica and I look to be headed for a disagreement about these, which may result in this being taken to a Community GAR rather than the current individual one. But I'm biding time for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment ignores that many of the citations are NOT based on the text article linked to, but rather the ABC news video(s) also linked to in the same link, you must watch them and listen to them in order to corroborate the content. It would however be ideal to find the transcripts of the individuals newscasts as they are more durably archived and would not eventually necessitate the wayback machine.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

I will provide more detailed comment later, but thought I should indicate that there has been substantive progress on the introductory structure of the article. The first section is now what it should be: a description of the product, and it appears to be more or less NPOV. Thank you Northamerica for the work there. The sections "controversy" and "abstention and product divestment" remain too long and contain too many individual details rather than distilling and presenting the most important features. This is perhaps mainly a form of recentism, or perhaps because editors have found themselves drafting 2012 pink slime controversy. Whatever the reason, it needs to be distilled and summarised more effectively. The good work done on the first section now makes me cautiously optimistic that the article can be fixed to retain its GA status. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no progress lately. And I've just come across one of the most egregious POV problems in this article so far. The USA's main consumer body has issued a statement on the subject, effectively condemning the misinformation campaign against pink slime. This organisation is an absolutely critical player, and one of the most impartial - it works to protect consumers, yet is actually critical of the way pink slime has been treated. There is no reference to NCL's statement in the text at all. It is merely an EL at the bottom. This is one of the most important sources to be used for the entire section on controversy, and yet it has been left languishing. This article is not a GA and I will move in coming days to either delist or take to community GAR, following responses here. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of NCL as "the USA's main consumer body". The NCL is at best a minor player - one of dozens of consumer watchdog groups, some neutral, some POV - and it has no official standing. It is far less notable and influential than (for example) Consumers Union. It just another group chiming in, and while its comments should be summarized somewhere in the article, it is by no means an "absolutely critical player."

You may be right about it not being the main group; I was influenced by it being nationwide and the oldest, but I'm not American, so i don't have much to go on. But I'm not sure what you mean by it having "no official standing". I would have said that, by definition, all NGOs have "no official standing". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasn't sure, from the tenor of your comments, whether you realized it was an NGO and not a government agency. Apologies. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the larger issue, I agree that this is not a Good Article, due to severe and persistent problems with POV, sources, and stability. You have labored over this, and NorthAmerica in particular has made a valiant effort, but I don't think it is there and IMO never will be. The original GA approval process was (to put it mildly) flawed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree both regarding GA status and the effort put in by NorthAmerica. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think some of these concerns are a little bit off base.

For instance: One of the very few facts relevant to outside the USA is that the product is banned in the UK. But the source is a Yahoo blogger. This major factual claim needs a serious source - for something this important, on a subject this controversial, i wouldn't accept anything less than a UK regulator's statement / regulation / directive, or a peer-reviewed article. I'm really not a wikipedia expert. But it seems to me that if we referenced Home Office Directive 162.34(b)(3) (I just made that up, I'm not British) as a source for the banning of pink slime in the UK, that would violate the ban on WP:OR and/or WP:PRIMARY. It needs to be a secondary source, not a primary source. Certainly we should use the most reliable sources, and perhaps a Yahoo blogger isn't that. Still, primary sources aren't appropraite.

I understand your concern, and this is a big problem in Wikipedia's law articles, where editors cite court cases in support of text about what those court cases mean, which is a violation of WP:PRIMARY. However, just as it would be OK to cite the cases for the bare facts before the court, the words used in the judgements, the dates of judgements, the court that made the judgement etc, I think it would be best to cite the actual regulator statement or regulation involved. I was however presuming that the cited source would contain relevant words to be quoted; otherwise, there would also ideally be a reliable secondary source confirming that the effect of the statement / regulation is what the regulator claims it to be. That is why i referred to "peer-review article" in my post. Note incidentally that WP:PRIMARY does not prevent the use of primary sources - the important words are: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some time later, there was a comment that a certain sentence "isn't even structured as a sentence" because it began with the word "and." (As far as I can tell, the sentence isn't in the article any more.) Starting sentences with "and" is completely legitimate and often a good way to spice up a drab passage. There's no rule that sentences can't start with and. (You can read more about this issue here, if you want: http://www.accu-assist.com/grammar-tips-archive/11-07-06_GrammarTip_and-but-conjunctions.htm) And the way you wrote your comment, with such certainty, about a rule that doesn't exist, was a bit off-putting to me.

I've seldom seem a sentence in an encyclopedia article (as distinct from a novel or journalism) where beginning it with "And" works effectively. my remark was probably a bit forceful in the context. As it happens, the construction was used in the source document. So WP editors were accurately quoting a source. It still read poorly, in my view, and the author of the cited blog doesn't follow the suggestions in the style guide - she used that formulation twice in one para. If she had simply omitted the "and" it would have made more sense. But that isn't our problem :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any experience with Good Article reviews, and I also don't have any experience with this Pink Slime article, so whether this article meets those criteria is beyond me. But it does seem like it might be a good idea to get someone with such experience that's actually neutral or non-involved with the article content to review this reassessment, if anything is to come of it. AgnosticAphid talk 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy for others to contribute here. The fact that it is an individual assessment per the GAR guidelines doesn't prevent other editors providing views. But I would point out that I am neutral / non-involved: I had no involvement in, or knowledge of, this article prior to its nomination at FAC (since archived). I have participated in discussions since that time because of my interest in compliance with FA and GA guidelines. I will close this review at some point soon, and I'm sure anyone who disagrees will take that disagreement to GAR, triggering a community reassessment. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I am closing this as a delist. Issues with structure and balance of the article, outlined above, still remain, as do issues with reliability of sourcing and the uses to which the sources have been put. Early sections have been improved considerably, and I thank Northamerica for their work on the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question your decision. In your final summary of "progress," you said you'd "provide a more detailed comment later," but you didn't, I don't think. Aside from your later displeasure over the failure to mention a minor NGO that you characterized as "the USA's main consumer body" -- with no source -- the only remaining issue I can see is that you think the controversy section is too long and not effectively "distilled or summarized." Considering the amount of controversy surrounding this article -- which you yourself have noted, as a reason to require extra-reputable sources -- I don't really think it's appropriate to close this less than 10 days after you posted your promised-to-be-but-not-expanded "progress" summary, as a delist, solely on the basis of your and MelanieN's opinions, particularly where as here it seems like you've got a pretty well established opinion about this article. While it's certainly true that more text was spilled here than in the initial GA review, it doesn't really seem to me like there's actually a consensus for this decision to delist merely because the criticism section isn't concise enough. But I know nothing about these sorts of reviews and doubt I could effectively launch an appeal of this decision. So, I guess I'll leave this here for posterity. AgnosticAphid talk 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you question the decision of an individual reassessment, the next step is to take it to a a community one. Unlike an individual one, it will be closed through consensus rather than by the initiator. AIRcorn (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks. AgnosticAphid talk 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate closure by nominator

~~As the nominator for this GA reassessment, it was inappropriate for user:Hamiltonstone to also close this discussion and delist the article. Per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment:~~

~~“ ~~When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user...~~ ”~~

~~Per the notes sections of the Good article reassessment page, section "Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion":~~

“ Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment. ”

~~I have relisted the page as a Good article.~~ Also, the article has been significantly improved to address concerns presented here. ~~This discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it was an individual reassessment. The person who started the reassessment is supposed to close it. Like I said above, if you want to challenge it you can take it to a community one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

~~Whoops, error! Thanks for the info. Struck my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]