Talk:Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 20, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed


this article reeks of industry-speak (numerous directions to "follow the lablel" like the ones found on the pesticide page. someone please check these facts and be sure it is NPOV. Bonus Onus 23:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rule 1 states that consumers will be liable for neglecting the instructions on the labels of pesticide products. More details are needed on what the liabilities are. shanwich (Shanwich (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).(SMW)

This project is for Bio 4700 - Interdisciplinary Applications of Biology. Here is my very very rough proposal of what I want to do with this page. This is highly subject to change.

I would have to add an introduction section and discuss the relevance of US and federal pesticide control and regulation. The history is too brief. I would probably have to discuss all of the various versions of the FIFRA act -what was changed and amended with each version. Then I would have to add various sections to discuss various aspect of the acts– what is does, what regulations does it set up, what agencies is involved, enforcement, registration and reregistration, and any other relevant information. Additionally, a graph, chart, or table would also be added. Dtran420 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

HI Ashley[edit]

Hey. My name is Johnny. Are we in the same class? I'm sorry, I'm bad with names. I see we are going to work on this together. If we do any editing of other people's work, let's first discuss it on the talk page ( copy and paste info in question, and reasons why you want to change, and how you propose changing it, etc). So here I go first:

"Before a pesticide can be registered, an applicant will have to prove that it wont cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. An unreasonable adverse effect is (1) any risk that is unreasonable to man or the environment that takes social, economic, and environmental costs as well as benefits into consideration and (2) any dietary risk that could be the result of a pesticide used with any food lacking consistency with the standards listed under section 408 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).[1] "

I will leave this here for now, but at some point we need a section on "registration", and this will go there.Dtran420 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GAN Nomination[edit]

There is a citation needed tag that will need to be sorted out before this can be passed as a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The lead needs to be longer. For an article of this length, WP:LEAD recommends three paragraphs. The lead should provide a summary of the entire body, without providing information that is not covered in the body of the article.
    • Way too much bullet-pointing and listy-ness. Much of the information contained in bullet points/lists is extraneous and can be tossed wholesale. If people want the entire list of adjuvants, they can go to the EPA website - that's why we have it as a link.
    • Due to the referencing and coverage issues, I have not done a full prose check.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The referencing needs quite a bit of work before this article is of GA standard. There are entire unreferenced sections, some of which contain statistics and potentially controversial statements.
    • There is a lot of primary sourcing to government agencies. For example, the entire Pesticides and endangered species section is sourced to the EPA. Has there been no outside looks at how this act relates to endangered species?
    • One citation needed tag, in the Regulations section.
    • Due to the lack of sourcing, it is difficult to see if there is original research present.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • This is another major area where the article is below GA standards. The article spends the majority of the time (too much of the time) talking about the provisions of the act and not enough time talking about the issues surrounding the act. Is there no information out there on response of the public to this act? Of farmers? Of the scholarly community? Have there been no legal issues with this act? Any challenges? Has there been any trouble enforcing it? Basically, more information on the act's purpose and effects in the real world, as opposed to the legalese of the act itself.
    • It surprises me that only one paragraph is devoted to the history of an act that has been around, in one form or another, for over 100 years. Only one sentence on when this specific act was passed? See some of the other law articles listed at WP:GA and WP:FA - they spend much more time on the legislative process that surrounds the creation and passing of various acts and bills.
    • The Conflicts with other laws and acts section mentions various conflicts and controversies, but gives next to no information about them. Expand, please?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Due to issues with sourcing and coverage, I have not checked this.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Unfortunately, this article is too far from GA standards to pass at this time. It needs quite a bit of work, largely with regard to sourcing and coverage, and so I am failing the nomination. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)