Talk:Barefoot running/GA1

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 08:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

 * Barefoot running is the act of running while barefoot
 * Tautology? Why not say "running without or with minimal footwear"? Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to rephrase with the basic definition of barefoot running as "running without footwear". I don't think I'd go so far and include minimalist running into that basic definition, since "barefoot running" specifically means "barefoot". Minimalist running, however, is still relevant since the concept of it is based on running with a minimal shoe that's designed to simulate the barefoot running experience. The lead incorporates this. WTF? (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "...sometimes...always...more....some...much...many..."
 * These words are unnecessary and should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "In modern society"
 * I've removed this. It was redundant to the subsequent phrase indicating the 20th century. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Market differentiation
There is need to differentiate genuinely minimal shoes from the mere marketting term: better clarity

Some shoes are nice and flat with good design: e.g. the Inov-8 range. They wholeheartedly embrace minimalist shoes in that they come from a fell-running background where they are selling to an educated market. These, and similar shoes, are bought by serious runners; these guys win races.

Others sell squishy shoes with arch support which in no way are like running barefoot, except for running barefoot on foam matresses.

Note that there are other manufacturers but so far as I can see they are the only ones to have minimalism across their range.

The hassle is writing this in the main article without looking commercially oriented or getting accused of POV/OR by the uebernerds.

Frontmech (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

History

 * Throughout most of human history, running was primarily done while barefoot or in thin-soled shoes''
 * On the one hand, this sounds like a normal, mundane claim. But on the other hand, it sounds a bit odd. We know nothing, really, about human history, let alone running. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does Shivnath Singh appear before Bruce Tulloh? Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas: we can be certain of some history because some of us are older than the squishy shoe. We ran in minimal shoes and barefoot before Bill Bowerman wrote Jogging (1966). So there are many people alive today on whom you could test or ask. More ancient runners are harder to test. However I have run in roman-style sandals without much difficulty (arse! POV/OR).

Whilst it may be a "normal, mundane claim", it is (IMHO) true. But it needs to be said (or sentence similar), to clarify for the uninitiated reader. Frontmech (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Health and medical implications

 * Recommended changes by User:MistyMorn can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. I ask that the nominator review them.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: has the nominator reviewed the changes and suggestions? Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

 * 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):
 * Minor prose issues
 * Consider mentioning barefoot running as part of the alternative running style category (ChiRunning, Pose method, etc.)
 * Consider adding the impact of McDougall's book to the lead
 * It may be inaccurate to say "Scientific research into the practice of running barefoot has not reached a clear consensus regarding its risks or its benefits" since there has been little to no scientific research on the subject.
 * History section prose reads disjointed and trivial; athlete data might require its own section
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Lots of major sources missing, both current and past. For example, Current Sports Medicine Reports has two relevant articles that should be in this article: The Barefoot Debate: Can Minimalist Shoes Reduce Running-Related Injuries? (2012); and Barefoot Running: Biomechanics and Implications for Running Injuries (2012).  For an additional list of relevant sources, see Goss & Gross 2012.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Concerns have been expressed by members of WikiProject Medicine about the weight given to the benefits and risks. Please review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 28
 * According to Goss & Gross (2012) in "A review of mechanics and injury trends among various running styles", U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, they were only able to identify one randomized control trial, which as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist running.  In any case, their paper (Goss & Gross) should be closely reviewed and compared to this article, especially their list of sources related to barefoot running and the results of their research.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:  No activity after 17 days of being on hold; I've even tried to contact the nominator with no luck.  I'm therefore failing this article at this time, but I encourage the nom to contact me for the two journal articles I requested above on his behalf which I would be happy to send him. Please renominate this article after the issues above are addressed. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:  No activity after 17 days of being on hold; I've even tried to contact the nominator with no luck.  I'm therefore failing this article at this time, but I encourage the nom to contact me for the two journal articles I requested above on his behalf which I would be happy to send him. Please renominate this article after the issues above are addressed. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:  No activity after 17 days of being on hold; I've even tried to contact the nominator with no luck.  I'm therefore failing this article at this time, but I encourage the nom to contact me for the two journal articles I requested above on his behalf which I would be happy to send him. Please renominate this article after the issues above are addressed. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Been a little bit busy lately with other things. I'll try to finish up addressing this issues by this weekend. Thanks! WTF? (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)