Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pink slime/1

Pink slime[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No acton Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Good article status of the Pink slime article was delisted per the nominator of an individual Good article reassessment (GAR) discussion located here: Talk:Pink slime/GA2. No offense intended, but the GAR nominator appears to possibly want the article to be structured per his or her dictum, rather than upon consensus achieved through editing and per discussions on the article's talk page. Most, if not all of the individual's concerns were addressed by editing the article, and some of the concerns in the GAR were contentious (e.g. reducing information in sections of the article, despite significant coverage in reliable sources over a significant period of time). Importantly, this article actually passes Wikipedia's Good article criteria. Therefore, I am listing this article for community reassessment, for it to be re-listed as a Wikipedia Good article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA Sorry, NorthAmerica, I know you worked really hard on this, but I agree with the nominator. This article has such recurring concerns with NPOV and stability (not to mention poorly organized flow and questionable sources) that it will probably never make it to GA no matter how obsessively we tweak the wording. This never should have been given Good Article status in the first place; the original Good Article review, which can be seen here Talk:Pink slime/GA1, was a travesty of the process involving no detailed analysis at all. --MelanieN (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. How would you recommend better-organizing the flow of the article? Which of the sources do you perceive as questionable? Activity at the article has slowed down, the article is stable, and while there have been some recent minor changes, matters regarding maintaining a neutral point-of-view have been resolved. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with NorthAmerica. I wasn't involved in the initial review and my participation in the reassessment was limited at best, but all of the points that hamiltonstone made were addressed by northamerica in the reassessment. The only possible exception is that hamiltonstone didn't think the controversy section was effectively "distilled or summarized," but I disagree. No summary of remaining issues was given at the end of the reassessment. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean that it can't be a good article. The article seems to have been relatively stable recently and I question the comment about NPOV. There's no POV tag or any recent discussions about how the article is supposedly biased, as far as I can tell. All of the Good article criteria are met, in my opinion. It's a Good article, not a Featured article or a Perfect article. AgnosticAphid talk 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the criteria. Melanie, which criteria do you think it fails, and why?:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. AgnosticAphid talk 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA: This looks like an attempt to do some damage control as the term "pink slime" is a PR embarrassment to vendors, but this is the WP:COMMONNAME at this point and therefore a valid title for the article. As such, anything more than minor changes to wording likely cannot be justified (if the topic of a page is the subject of controversy, Wikipedia itself does not take sides in that controversy but at the same time has no reason to deny that the controversy exists). K7L (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article fails to meet criteria 3a (breadth) and 4 (NPOV). For example, the Mass media section gives scant details on the plaintiff's reasons for the suit. For example, the CNN article describing the lawsuite (note 120) contains important details on why the company feels it has been wronged by the news report and why it subsequently launched the lawsuit. Omission of details like this leaves the article incomplete and unbalanced. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y The article's "In mass media" section has been updated with information about the plaintiff's reasons for the lawsuit. This information was then moved to a new section titled "BPI lawsuit". Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial review by Pyrotec[edit]

At this stage I'm just going to highlight problems. When I've produced the list I will consider them and then come to a decision. I've also read Talk:Pink slime/GA2, which was closed in August 2012 and I'm seeing similar problems, may be not the same but unreliable sources are being used in it. The same point, about (un)reliable sources, was made in Talk:Pink slime/GA1 Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead -

Ref 3 is used in the article to confirm the statement "Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)" and the ref also used later on. This ref is a blog so its not generally regarded as a WP:RS, however since some of it was posted by Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety, I'll regard words by Hagen as (possibly) reliable. The second used of ref 3 uses words by Elizabeth Hagen, however, she does not use the term "Pink slime" nor does she seem to confirm that Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) and Pink slime are the same. Ref 5 does, as do the rest of the references used in the first paragraph but they don't seem to be used for this purpose (they are there for other things).
Ref 4 is a broken web link - error 404.

marker point - I'm comming backed to the lead when I've gone through the article to the end. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Product overview -
In the first paragraph, Ref 16 is marked as a dead link (and it is dead, I've checked).

The second paragraph has a Wikipedia:Citation needed flag.

- Legality by country -

In respect of this series of statements: "In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers. However, it can constitute up to 15 percent of ground beef without additional labeling,[19] and it can also be added to other meat products such as beef-based processed meats.[19]". The first sentence is not verifiable, the second one is verifiable, and the third is somewhat vague: it states: "Many wanted to know whether it was in ground turkey or chicken, it is not. Pink slime is only being added to beef products, primarily ground beef, but it is also in some processed meats.".
The claims about the UK are based on a blog. Hardly a reliable source, as stated back in Talk:Pink slime/GA2.
The claim about the EU is based on Ref 31, which seems to be broken - it gives a 503 service unavailable message, Ref 32 The Hudson River's "The Nyack Village" web site (not something I'd regard as a reliable source on Europe); and ref 33 The Independant, which also seems to be unavailable.

History -

Overall summary[edit]

This is not an article at WP:GAN, so I'm going to stop treating it as a GAN. Having got this far, I would say that this article is close to being a GA, but its not there yet. If this was a GAN, I may well put the review On Hold for corrective actions to be done. However, this is not a GAN, its a WP:GAR and more precisely its a complaint about the last personal WP:GAR, so I'm going to consider it from that point of view.

Ignoring the title for now, this is a fairly comprehensive and well referenced article, but some of the claims are unreferenced and/or have citation needed flags (and dead links) and some references cant be regarded as reliable sources - the use of blogs for instance and local US community web site(s) for European Union official policy statements. The lead is non-compliant with WP:Lead in that it makes no attempt to summarise the whole of the article and comply with the relative emphasis (see WP:Lead#Introductory text), nor with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (I'll come back to this). The current lead needs to be approximately double its current size for an article of this length.

If this was an article about lean finely textured beef (LFTB) and/or boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT), I would accept that article was broadly compliant with the requirements for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is made clear in the article that "pink slime" as a pejorative term (in History section it states: "....This article included the first public use of the term "pink slime" as a pejorative term.[37]....").

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Close to being a GA, but needs more work in places.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead is non-compliant, its too short and only provides a summary of some of the material discussed in the article. This was raised back in July 2012 in Talk:Pink slime/GA2.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Mostly yes.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
This was raised in Talk:Pink slime/GA1 in respect of a Yahoo blog; again in Talk:Pink slime/GA2, and by my above.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
I would consider the body of the article to be compliant. The title is not compliant nor is the first paragraph of the WP:Lead. The tone of the lead is set by the first paragraph, namely: "Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)[3] and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT).[4] It is also known by the dysphemistic slang term soylent pink." The term "dysphemistic slang term" is used for soylent pink (see wiktionary - dysphemism) a term that is equally applicable to Pink Slime. It is very easy to fix this, rename the article and carry out a minor edit on the first sentence of the lead; a re-label the two images. Probably nothing else is needed.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In summary:

By all means resubmit the article to WP:GAN, but I do suggest that the concerns raised in Talk:Pink slime/GA2 and in this assessment are addressed first.
I consider that many of the concerns raised by hamiltonstone on 18 July 2012 in Talk:Pink slime/GA2 are valid, as are many of the comments raised on the talkpage: Talk:Pink slime. I'm sorry but to be a GA the article has to comply with WP:WIAGA, and in parts it still does not.

I will be happy to review it at WP:GAN should you choose to submit it you I would that the points that have been raised over the last four months are addressed first. I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this review. I'm not very experienced or familiar with either the article subject the procedure here, but if you'd care to expand on your opinion of the title in light of WP:POVTITLE and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming, I'd welcome it. I feel like soylent pink is not a very familiar or frequently used term and there's not an obvious encyclopedic alternative to pink slime. The industry-favored names seem as POV as pink slime and they are not as popular. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 07:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Soylent Green.AgnosticAphid talk 07:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I entered "lean finely textured beef" into google and it came up with this list of hits: [1]. The first hit was for wikipedia: Pink slime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pink slime" Look up pink slime, lean finely textured beef, LFTB, soylent pink, or beef in ... Lean finely textured beef, also known as pink slime, is a beef-based product that is ... Meat slurry - Advanced meat recovery - Mechanically separated meat". It seems to me that the article should be titled: "lean finely textured beef", or something similar. In fact there is an article called lean finely textured beef, it merely a link to the article Pink slime.
The lead could then say: "Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)[3] and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT).[4] It is also known by the dysphemistic slang term soylent pink and. as term of abuse: Pink slime. It is a processed beef product that was originally used only in pet food and cooking oil and was not approved for human consumption.[9] In 2001 in the United States the product was approved for limited human consumption and began to be used as a food additive to ground beef and beef-based processed meats as a filler at a ratio of usually no more than 25 percent of any product. The production process uses heat in centrifuges to separate the fat from the meat in beef trimmings.[10] The resulting product is exposed to ammonia gas or citric acid to kill bacteria.[10][11] The product is sold in the U.S. to food companies which use it as a filler product in ground beef production. It was reported in March 2012 that approximately 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained the additive at that time. In March 2012, ABC News ran a series of news reports about the product, which generated significant controversy and led to increased consumer concerns. Following the controversy, some companies and organizations discontinued the provision of ground beef with the additive, while others continued to provide beef with the filler.". Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems a little anomalous to have to change the title to LFTB in order for this to be a good article given that exact that proposed move failed to achieve a consensus because many people thought LFTB was not neutral and that if a non-neutral name had to be picked that Pink slime was the WP:COMMONNAME. [2] (a similar proposed move to BLBT also failed [3].) But like I said, I'm not very familiar with this whole process and I do appreciate the feedback on how you think the article could be made more neutral. AgnosticAphid talk 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the difficultly, but just changing the name will not make this a Good article, it has to comply with WP:WIAGA. Having carried out this review I've raised concerns about verifying claims. There does appear to be reliable sources in the article supporting the use industry-standard names. The name "Pink slime" seems to appear only in blogs and some newspaper articles, but those articles are not being used to verify the claims that Pink Slime has that (property, etc). Blogs are not generally regarded as being reliable; and a local US community newspaper article is being used to "verify" claims that Europe has officially banned something. If that is so a European reference is better than a US community web site/newspaper. Wikipedia is not asking to proof that something is true or false; only that certain statements in the article can be verified via references to reliable sources. For example, I've stated above: Lead - Ref 3 is (being) used in the article to confirm the statement "Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)" and the ref also used later on. This ref is a blog so its not generally regarded as a WP:RS, however since some of it was posted by Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety, I'll regard words by Hagen as (possibly) reliable. The second used of ref 3 uses words by Elizabeth Hagen, however, she does not use the term "Pink slime" nor does she seem to confirm that Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) and Pink slime are the same. Ref 5 does, as do the rest of the references used in the first paragraph but they don't seem to be used for this purpose (they are there for other things). Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]