Talk:Social class differences in food consumption/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 01:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am happy to perform a review of this article. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, I trimmed some of the section headings. They shouldn't be overly long or include the names of their parent section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing that the person that nominated this article has only made one edit since December 3rd. So, it may be that they don't even know that the GA review is happening. I'll keep on working on it - and making minor edits to move it along, and if someone wants to weigh-in on the review comments, that would be great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this a little slow for several reasons, but in large part because it would be helpful to talk to the nominee about the article. If someone shows up, please ping me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments / reasons for failing right now

I am going to fail this article at this time because it needs a lot of work, including participation by a nominee with subject matter experience:

This is essentially a US-centric article, so it should be titled that way. Or, expand it to a world-view.
It would be nice to put the historic information in its own section.
There isn't a thorough, consistent approach to the sections, and the Middle class section representing the highest percentage of people has the least information.
It would be great to have someone weigh-in on this article and discuss whether there should be a factors section, to discuss how some of the factors affect the various classes. I say this because sometimes there's discussion in one of the subsections that applies to more than one class. For instance, Omnivorism is only in the Upper class diets, but people of all classes eat ethnic food. But, that's not really an appropriate use of the word omnivorism anyway. And, it's narrow-minded to state that only Upper class people have the education needed to research nutrient information. These are just a few examples.
I find it an interesting article, but I think it's needs to be focused a bit more in approach and some of the information filled in a bit better.
It would be good to have more statistics rather than generalizations for the information that is specific to upper, middle, or lower classes.

I would be very happy to work with someone on this article. Please feel free to ping me.

In any event, this is a great topic to expand and edit to be a good article. Then, after seven days from today, it can be renominated for a good article review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I think it makes more sense for the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the first paragraph to be switched.
I am not understanding Eating behavior is a highly affiliative act,[1] thus the food one eats is closely tied with one's social class throughout history.[2] By using the word "thus" the second part of the sentence should directly correlate to the first part. But, I am not seeing how "throughout history" is a foregone conclusion.
Is "objective" the right word in Social class can be examined according to its objective? The piped value for objective is Socioeconomic status. Perhaps "factors that define socioeconomic status"?
I like that there's a start to a world view with the sentence that starts In contemporary Western society, Opening that door, it would be good to provide more information about the food consumption paradigms in other areas.
I made a couple of minor edits here, adding one link and edits to two i.e.s in one sentence.
I will come back to this section after reading the rest of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upper class diets

I made some formatting changes (minor, not changing article verbiage) to the headings here. "Characteristics" is not needed. There are no other headings to this level and the sections read fine without having "Characteristics" as a heading. The content in "Contributing factors" shows that it is its own topic and not a subtopic of Nutritional quality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of upper class diets

Removed this unnecessary heading as explained above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusivity

Rather than having "reflects" used twice in the same sentence, I changed "which reflects a food item's" to "and its" here. How does that seem?
Rather than having "tastes of refinement" repeated from the previous sentence and food from the same sentence, I made an edit here replacing "in other words, "tastes of refinement" reflected foods that" with "and". It now reads: Historically, these were highly exclusive food items,[4] which were marked by high demand and low supply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Removed the other section headings since stopping the review at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]