Talk:Alkaline diet/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I worried a bit when I saw this on the Good article nominees, as there is, as I'm sure you know, a lot of quackery surrounding alkaline diets out there. You have, however, mostly struck a good balance. I think that a few more tweaks could be useful before promotion, but it's generally there.

First of all, the lead could probably stand to make a distinction between the more extreme quackery versions (claimed to affect the blood) and what diet could change. I'd also imagine there are a few, rare cases where changing the pH of urine could have some advantage - wasn't there a kidney stone remedy related to that? It was in one of Stephen Jay Gould's books - that might be worth briefly mentioning as well. With this kind of article, defining terms helps a lot.

I'd suggest the sentence "Due to the lack of human studies supporting any benefits of this diet, it is generally not recommended by dieticians and other health professionals." should come earlier. It serves a useful framing role.

On the whole, this is pretty good. I think it's well on the way to GA, just that difficult articles such as this are hard to get perfectly right. Think I'll ask WP:FTN to have a quick look as well, since getting these sorts of things right is that board's expertise, so they'd be useful to have on hand. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look at the nomination. The use in changing urine pH/kidney stones is discussed in the History section at the bottom of the page (placed there per WP:MEDMOS). It isn't really used for that purpose much anymore as medications do a much better job than diet does, so it's largely a historical relic for that use. My time on Wikipedia is extremely limited for the next week or so, so I might not be quick to respond here. Please bear with me, I will get back to the suggestions as soon as possible. Yobol (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! A little tweaking of the lead, and I think this one's a pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, moved the sentence higher (2nd paragraph) as suggested. Thanks for bearing with me. Yobol (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how much that change makes to how the article reads. Promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)