This article passed GA, has received a Peer review and I consider it of good standard. It details a currently important issue that is featured often in the media, and is part of the under developed FA category that is Food and drink (only 9 FAs), so therefore it would also seem to be important. This is my first FA nomination, so apologies in advance for any obvious errors etc. Comments, criticisms and suggestions are appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting topic. There's a bit of overlinking of common terms that don't need to be linked, such as "economic", "social", "starvation", "poverty", etc. Also, I see a mix of single quotes and double quotes, I think double quotes should be used. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Linking isn't my best asset, so any help with that is appreciated; I've removed the links you cited. Similarly I wasn't sure about the quotation mark policy (although I have now looked it up and apparently either can be used (but I would agree in this case for double)). They are now changed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Done; thanks. Alt text is mostly good, but two images lack it entirely; please see the template documentation for how to fix this, and to check your work when done please visit the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Also, Image:Meanfoodcost.png has alt text that does not tell the visually impaired reader the gist of what they cannot see, namely what the graphs say. A nit: there's a missing "st" in "again a white background".Eubulides (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked briefly at the alt text button results, but bypassed the top two images for some reason (I see now the parameters are slightly amiss). Fixed. As for Image:Meanfoodcost.png, I'm not sure what should be done; its content is too comprehensive to adequately sum up and the data (which would give equaled information) contained in the source would be better; can I redirect the user there? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It's OK (and fairly typical) if a graph needs longer alt text to give the gist to a visually impaired reader. A summary here shouldn't be that long, surely: it could start with something like "On average, single households could avoid about £5 of their £7 (or 2 kg of their 3 kg) of food waste. Figures for other households are £10 of £14 (or 4 of 7 kg) for shared, unrelated; £7 of £11 (or 3 of 5 kg) for families of adults; ...". I hope you get the idea: for a graph the important thing is not the colors of the bars but what the graph actually says to the viewer. Eubulides (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this the link to the right article?--Rockfang (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is, thank you very much Rockfang; I had sent an email to the FSA regarding the error on the former page, hoping they could get back to me and restore it before the FA process. But this appears to be its new location. Fixed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose I mean this in the best possible way that this is a good article and is well written. The main thing I see is lack of comprehension, particularly in the history part. I studied British history at A-level and I'm aware that many important details related to food rationing and regulating waste are missing, particularly World War I and World War II, I would flesh that out into a whole paragraph and how Britain dealt with food and waste during the wars. Similarly there are many organizations working to deal with food waste but you haven't really done much to explore the relationships of such groups with local councils and within a national framework. You briefly mentioned UNEP and WRAP but a lot of work is being done by NGOs and other environmental groups. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good article but for a featured articles I'd like to see it show more evidence of wider reading and study and ensure it gives the best possible coverage and conciseness as possible. Great work so far but I think it still needs considerable work so ensure that there are no major gaps. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting. The issue of how far the historical perspective should be covered came up before the FA process (it's in the talk page), but I considered that the current status touches on the subject without lingering; to my mind, having researched the topic quite substantially, the problem is a decidedly modern one. Avoiding food waste during the wars was done as part of the war effort, not for social, economic or environmental reasons as is done today, therefore I don't really want the article to become bogged down by information on rationing in the wars etc. Although I hope that explanation may have satisfied your comments, I will seek out some further sources and expand somewhat on the history section anyway. As for other NGOs and environmental groups; what ones are you in particular considering? I have mentioned UNEP and WRAP, as you pointed out, but also the WI and referenced sources from FoE. I can't admit coming across any groups that struck me as necessary for inclusion, but I would be more than happy to include any you can think of. I hope I can address your problems before the closure of the FAC process and maybe have you down to a weak oppose! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh it is a more of a weak oppose. I would just explore google a bit further by tapping in different commands like "UK food waste NGO or environmental group etc or "UK food waste concession" things like that and seeing if It doesn't have to be in detail as I said the idea is to make it as comprehensive but as importantly, concise as possible which I believe the article could be improved on. I agree that the article doesn't want to become too bogged down with information on the wars but I still think you should flesh it out into a fuller paragraph as I believe the way in which food was rationed in the wars and the way they minimised wastage was important for later development in dealing with waste.
I have done a bit of google research but a lot of what I came up with might not be relevant as it is generalised towards recycling and general waste rather than specially food waste. I'll see if I can find something later. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay I will do that. When researching I found the same problem, with many sources being non-specific to food waste. Thank you for commenting and offering help, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Shame nobody else has looked at this. You say quite a lot that action "is recognised " or something "considered" essential for future sustianability etc that sort of thing. Considered or recognised by whom? I think you need to clarify who considers this etc. Good example is "The impact of food waste on the environment is viewed to be enormous; a reduction in food waste is considered critical ". Viewed by whom to be enormous, and considered critical by whom? Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be quite honest: by too many people and organisations to mention. The same goes for comments such as this, "Reducing the amount of food waste has been deemed critical if the UK is to meet international targets on climate change." But if I were to list (deemed critical by...) those who think so then I would be reaching into double figures. For instance: Defra, WRAP, The Independent, the United Nations, the Food Standards Agency and many more. Because everyone is on the same wave length on this debate (i.e. food waste is bad for the environment) I don't consider it necessary to go into such details. Of course, like anything, I am willing to be swung around to the idea, but I'll need a bit more persuasion it's worth it! Is that okay?
I've expanded the History section to include more details on WWI and II, the long term effects of rationing, the formation of WRAP and the Food we waste report. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth. I've spelt out the abbreviations and linked them as well. As for the references, I hope my explanations suffice:
This is not an especially reliable source. After Dr. Blofeld suggested expansion of the History section, I stuck in that statement and used that source as a "temporary source" for lack of alternative sources at the time. I was hoping I could find a more reliable reference on my own, but I can't seem to. Any advice?
Edie.net is apparently "Officially Europe's biggest environmental website", and while that doesn't give them assured credibility, I do think the About us does provide assurances. I consider it a reliable, if slightly unconventional, source.
Food Navigator was awarded the "2005 Business Food and Drink Journalism Awards - Website of the Year" (press article here) and it's got some good press as well.
Interestingly, the source for that article was actually from a site called "New Energy Focus", which seems considerably more reliable and presents more detailed information. I'll replace and adapt the content tomorrow (it's getting late for me). By the time you read this the changes may have happened.
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I did unintentionally cover much of this criteria with my last response. I've double checked them, and I consider, with the exception of the first and last sources, them all to be reliable. Do you have any concerns in particular? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made the change dicussed earlier, and altered multiple other bits and pieces. Images have also been edited, one has been replaced and another has been added (alt text should be satisfactory). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean replacing Spartacus.net and the bioenergy one? As for the others, I remain on the fence about business green, but for the others, awards for websites and their own about us pages aren't the best way to show reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Replaced the bioenergy one and its respective information. I chose all the sources used in the article carefully, with most representing the very best in the context. I don't see a problem with Business Green myself, the site is "backed by a large media company" (as per the linked article), the articles from the "News" section are written by the editorial staff and it's a content partner of The Guardian's Environmental Network; for a specialist environmental website I believe it's about the best you can ask for. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.