Talk:Pink slime/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will review this. Adding all my comments shortly. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

In my opinion all facts in the lead should typically be mentioned in the main text as well, and the citations should go there.

This topic has been quite controversial, so for this particular article, it's likely best to also have inline citations to reliable sources right there in the lead. Removing them may cause confusion for readers, or a contestation of the statements in the lead per a lack of sources verifying content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link filler

It's unclear what you mean here by "Link filler". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean can "filler" be linked? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work at this time in the article. The closest link is an article about a similar topic, but for animal food, at Filler (animal food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are trimmings?

It seems self-explanatory per the rest of the text, but to further clarify, I have provided linkage to the advanced meat recovery article, to provide further definition. (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the largest U.S. producer I think it would be helpful to add "of beef" here, just for clarity. Optional.

Added "of the additive" (diff). The company is the largest producer of the additive, not beef. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in general appears listy and choppy due to the numerous short paragraphs. You may disagree, but I feel we should combine paragraphs to make it look more interesting. I liked the presentation at Big King.

I have performed reorganization, which included the consolidation of content into larger paragraphs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some consolidation would help in "Early use" and "Market response". Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the Early use section is best left as-is, because it clearly demonstrates the chronology of the topic. Combining information here could have a negative effect of diluting the information and creating a minor form of synthesis. I have consolidated some information in the Market response section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "trimmings" is self explanatory per content further up in the article, where Advanced meat recovery is linked under the moniker "beef trimmings". Beef seems to be too common of a term to need linking. I have expanded content describing the roller press freezer (diff). Linked cell wall. I linked additive, but further up in the article, in a section after the lead. I provided further clarification for lean beef in the section, which preceeds "lean ground beef". Linked cartilage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flash freezing is linked again as flash frozen

Fixed. Removed the second redundant internal link (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle looks too common to be linked

I'm aware of WP:OVERLINK, but because this topic is intrinsically related to beef products from cattle, I feel that the link is okay in this instance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BPI and Cargill should be mentioned by their full names and linked at first mention in the main text

Done per recent copy edits. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing the melted fat by centrifugal force Better say centrifuge directly lest the reader should be left wondering how this happens.

Y I have clarified this by rewriting it to "... removing the melted fat by centrifugal force using a centrifuge ..." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early use

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

use of the basic technology What does "basic technology" mean?

Removed the word "basic", as an unnecessary adjective in this instance (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USDA FSIS microbiologists You have already mentioned the association between them, so we could simply say FSIS here.

Done. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USDA FSIS microbiologists Carl Custer and Gerald Zirnstein... This line looks very long, can it be split?

Splitting it into two sentences could create ambiguity, and it's really not overly long. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

process's effectiveness I think "the effectiveness of the disinfection process" looks better.

Makes sense. I rw it to "of the effectiveness and safety of the disinfection process". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

occasions in which process adjustments Should "in" not be "on"?

I think it's clearer worded as-is. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

, aired on April 12, 2011, To avoid so many commas can we say aired on 12 April 2011 without commas?

Most sources are based in the U.S., and the topic itself is also. U.S. uses Month/day/year format, which is consistent throughout the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Y I also removed two commas from the sentence, which weren't necessary (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver has stated I think it should be simply "stated".

Y Rw to "Oliver stated". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link (or explain) connective tissue, pathogenic, anhydrous, The New York Times

Done Added links (diff), and also copy edited a bit after linking The New York Times (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News report

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Link ABC News, ammonium hydroxide, ware (Market response)

Ammonium hydroxide is already linked earlier in the article. A link to ABC News is present. "Wares" does not have an article, because it's a simple word that is a dictionary definition. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry.

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the use of ammonium hydroxide is only one of several chemicals --> ammonium hydroxide is only one of several chemicals

Done (diff). Makes sense. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LFTB was referred to as We have discussed this naming of the product nowhere in the main text.

LFTB is short for "lean finely textured beef", which is stated in the lead. I have added to the full phrase here to further clarify ("Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) was referred to as ...") (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USDA considered it as meat. Does meat need a link? You do not link it in the lead or at the first mention in the main text.

I think "meat" is too common of a term, as per WP:OVERLINK. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I mean. Why is it linked in this line? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, missed that. Removed the link (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One newspaper reported Which one?

Y Rw to "The Concord Monitor" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On March 25, 2012, "DMY" dates are typically used. Check throughout the article.

The topic is mostly reported in U.S. sources, and the topic itself is based in the U.S., which uses a Month/day/year format. As such, it is presently properly formatted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

72 customers, many over the course of one weekend and production decreased --> 72 customers and many over the course of one weekend; production decreased

I added a comma here, which actually made the sentence much more readable as-is. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is nadir?

Y Clarified (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About 80% of sales % --> percent as written elsewhere

Y Makes sense in this instance. Rw to "80 percent" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plainview, Texas, links?

Added a link to Plainview, Texas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many grocery stores and supermarkets Are links needed?

They're common terms, but the product is typically sold to end-consumer in these types of markets, so links here are helpful. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

including the nation's three largest chains Their names? Largest as of when?

The article does not state the names of the grocery chains, so cannot add this. I have copy edited the article to further clarify: "including the nation's three largest chains, announced in March 2012 that ..." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplink: United States Department of Agriculture (Market response)

Fixed Removed duplicate link (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

forty-seven of fifty states Digits please.

Y Rw to "47 out of of 50 U.S. states" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska, and Iowa links?

Unlikely necessary, as summarized at WP:OVERLINK. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is bullish Link for bullish?

Probably best left as-is. Per WP:LINKSTYLE, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked... " North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen links in quotes in many other articles. It is in fact good to link in this case. If this is no absolute rule we can link bullish. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, linked bullish, which redirects to Market sentiment. May provide clarity for readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "U.S. Government response" can be better renamed as "Government response", this includes responses by different States and not just the national government's.

Y I agree, rw section header to: "Government response". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Safeway? Optional

Done. Linked Safeway (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USDA commodity dollars What does this mean?

Rw/clarified by rewriting to "USDA commodity funds". Also added a link to commodity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does school meal need a link?

Done Linked school lunches in the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated This is another issue. Just say USDA every time once you have introduced it

Done The full name "United States Department of Agriculture" is now only in the lead and first paragraph. I have retained the full name in the image caption to promote clarity in the caption. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

beginning in fall 2012 --> beginning in the fall of 2012

I think it's best left as-is. The suggestion above seems to add a bit of unnecessary wordiness. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated, beginning in fall 2012 it would give school districts I think we need to fix some commas here.

Fixed (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is CBS?

Y Rw to CBS News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BPI claimed $1.2 billion in damages as a result of the ABC reports Is this not a repetition of what is stated earlier in the para?

Y Yes, this was entirely repetitive, so I removed this repeat mention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current use

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

A general question. How do you differentiate between "Early" and "Current"? Is three years ago still "current"?

I feel that the present format still works, per the chronology of what sources have reported about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as you wish.

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013, LFTB was in an estimated 5% of beef, according to industry officials. Needs clarity. What industry? Which beef?

Y Rw to "... was in an estimated 5% of ground beef, according to meat industry officials ...", per the source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "%" should be "percent" as you say elsewhere in the article.

Neutral. I don't mind using both the abbreviation and full word in the article, because the abbreviations make it less wordy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as you wish.

Resolved Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Duplink: disinfection

Fixed Only the first mention of the term "disinfection" is now linked in the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain Baader process? It is a redlink.

Done Expanded this area of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

for its elimination Say "pink slime" when you begin a section, not "it"

Copy edited (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Don't delete refs. before going through the list, it can distort the ref. nos. mentioned here.

Y I haven't deleted any references. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can all the date formats be converted to DD-MM-YYYY ?~~

Most sources, and the topic itself, is based in the United States, which uses a Month/day/year format. As such, it's best left as-is. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but ref. 2 is in a different format. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Proper formatting needed in refs. 3, 10~~

Fixed Refs 3 and 10 now properly formatted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Proper formatting needed in refs. 42, 47, 58, 78, 90~~

Fixed. I have formatted all of the above sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Refs. 2, 4, 20, 24, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94, 95, 96, 100, 103 seem to be deadlinks~~

I fixed Refs 95, 96, 100 & 103, and crossed them out above. Mojoworker (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Y Deadlink templates are now present for ref numbers: 2, 4, 20, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Y The link for ref #24 is working at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not sure if refs. 7, 9, 10, 37, 49 are reliable.~~

Ref #7 is essentially a primary source used to verify content in the article, but it's a reliable primary source reporting what Jamie Oliver said. I have removed this citation from the lead. Note that this removal moved the source to #37 in the references section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #9 is from Drovers, a reliable source. From [1]: "Drovers, Farm Journal's leading source for information on the beef industry, provides useful business management and marketing information for all segments of the industry." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #10 is published by CNN, a reliable source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #37 is now ref #36 in the article. It is a primary source (as per the above), and I have added the dead link template to it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #49 is reliable, published by CBS New York. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for elaborating on this. I agree with your points. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italics for agency in ref. 8. Please check for the other sources. You can also link the sources like USA Today

Actually, periodical publisher names are placed in italics, but not news networks. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref. 25: Caps for e in "editorial"~~

Fixed (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I could not access refs. 15, 16~~

I am able to access both. Here's the links: [2], [3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref. 19 seems to be going elsewhere.~~

I am able to access the link here, which is properly formatted in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref. 68-Reuters, not reuters.com. Similarly in ref. 85~~

Fixed both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lower case in ref. 98~~

Fixed (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Refs. 20, 46, 56, 62, 63, 70, 84 seem to be going elsewhere.~~

Y Updated: Added dead link template to ref #20, 46, 56, 63 and 84. I am able to access ref #62 [4] and #70 [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if "dead link" templates should stay in an article. Could we just omit the URLs? And the Yahoo sources are still redirecting to the Yahoo homepage for me. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links can often be accessed using internet archive services, such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. As such, I feel the dead links are best left in place. Also, dead links occasionally become live again. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I could not check refs. 78, 102 and 104.~~

Y Ref #78 opens for me [6], as does ref #104 [7]. I have added the dead link template to ref #102 (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: This has been an interesting review, thanks for all your patience and cooperation. And also for adding the "Extended content" boxes, it is easier to navigate here! Alright; I have detected no copyvio, the sources look good, the article is very well-written and illustrated as was possible. In my opinion this meets the GA criteria. I am happy to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: It's been a pleasure collaborating with you on this, and I look forward to the prospect of potential continued collaboration with you in the future. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Lead

Contents

Early use

ABC News report

Current use

Regulation

Legislation

Sources