Talk:Sugar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Waveclaira (talk · contribs) 06:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Review

have a percentage chart of top producing countries Done.
same for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Consumption -- can be per capita Done.
"(or as the report puts it, the studies are "limited") is unnecessary. wordy. unhelpful. Done.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIAGA#What_is_a_good_article.3F
"(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
article is too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 06:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Which parts do you think are too long?[reply]
"may raise blood glucose levels more quickly than does starch" - may? will it or not? and if it may, under what conditions? and if it may not, under what conditions? Done.
vague, vague, vague -- "These suggest that the consumption of sugar and starch have different impacts on health" -- how different? positive or negative difference? etc. Done.
are these significant impacts? how so? Done.
"According to WebMD..." -- unreliable source. you should source the direct source that wedmd is sourcing. I am unable to find the research article. I will remove this information if you wish.

review will continue after these points are achieved, or i guess, another reviewer can pass-fail it. Waveclaira (talk)

Thank you for taking on this review. I have now dealt with the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Apteva (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take out all of the references from the lead section and move them to the body. The lead section is intended to summarize the body, and should only include references if there is something there that is particularly surprising. Apteva (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove all redlinks, either by de-linking them or creating stub articles for them.~~ Please disregard. Apteva (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to create articles for the species concerned and these red wikilinks should turn blue in the next 24 hours. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add links, where appropriate, such as to Alzheimer's disease, which is not currently linked. Not all subjects that we have an article need links, just the ones that are not common knowledge. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking Apteva (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In modern times" needs to be dated - modern as in 1950? 1900? 1800? 2012? 1492? (it is amusing to see 1492, albeit correctly, referred to as "modern history"). And you do not need to be wishy washy about the health concerns, which are very serious - in excess quantities. In 2004, the third biggest health risk (and the greatest risk factor) in the United States was obesity. "The World Health Organization claims that obesity is one of the biggest health risks in the world and the problem is not just confined to the United States." In medieval times obesity was considered a sign of wealth not because of sugar but because of the fatty foods you could afford. Since maybe 2000 in the United States being thin was a sign of wealth - and being on welfare was typified by being overweight. Note, though, that obesity is not just due to sugar, but also to a lack of exercise. By 2010, obesity really took off, from one state in 1995 to twelve in 2010 having over 30% of the adult population being obese.[1] The article expresses a pre-2010 view of sugar only being bad if it is refined, and fails to note that all sugar adds to obesity if it is not consumed by exercise (Michael Phelps was on 12,000 calorie/day diet and no one can call him obese).[2] As pointed out in the article, Americans consume more high fructose corn syrup than sugar today, so it could easily be said that it is not sugar that is causing obesity, but corn sweeteners (because of their sugar content). Apteva (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "In modern times". As for the rest of what you have said, obesity is a problem here in Britain as well. However it is caused by excess consumption of food relative to the body's requirements rather than consumption specifically of sugar. The health part largely predates my involvement with the article. There may be more recent studies specifically linking sugar and health but they are not easy to find among the many studies on nutrition in general. What action, if any, would you like me to take with regard to the health section? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the article length, 62,075 bytes is getting up there, but a word count shows only 33,000 characters. If you wanted to shorten it, the best candidates I see for subarticles are production and health, although since there is already an article on history of sugar you could move all but one paragraph of history to that subarticle. Four paragraphs is a bit long for a lead section, but is warranted for an article that has over 30,000 characters. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length Apteva (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to shorten the article, that was just the suggestion of the original reviewer. Moving some of the history would involve a lot of work integrating the material into the History of sugar article which is already pretty comprehensive, and I would have to rewrite what was left behind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization - I would suggest moving chemistry to before types of sugar. Apteva (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Everything looks good now. Normally the first reviewer will pass it, if they do not within a reasonable time I can. Apteva (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for completing this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]