Talk:Filler (animal food)

Untitled
Suggest strongly replacing Fillers with a redirect to Filler or one of its disambiguations. Will probably do so myself really. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a good one at filler; if anything the best redirect would be to dietary fiber. I believe there's enough controversy over its use in pet foods specifically, especially given the recalls, that a separate article is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cwinkels, Byan7, Switzerb, AGordonANSC1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rs for Filler (animal food)
There is a discussion concerning this article at RSN. Your input is welcome. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Filler (animal food). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081017172555/http://www.api4animals.org:80/facts.php?p=359&more=1 to http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

questions regarding filler (animal food)
I enjoyed the simplicity of this article, as it was brief but informative. It flowed very nicely and avoided leaning towards one view point over another. I did have a couple of questions regarding this article. 1) What are some fiber fillers that would be beneficial to an animal's diet? 2) Are there any other benefits to having dietary fiber as a filler besides reducing blood sugar?

After reading this article, I did some more research into the topic. I found another website with information exactly as was written in this article. I feel it is best for the wording of this article to be edited to avoid plagiarism, as the other website was not credited here. A second change I feel would be beneficial to make this article more accurate would be to include more sources. I found two that I feel would improve this article.

References to include: 1) Designs, N. (n.d.). What are Pet Food Fillers? Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.aplusflintriverranch.com/define-fillers.php 2) (2006). Nutrient requirements of dogs and cats (pp. 64). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Scalleya (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Critique
Considering the five key elements that every good Wikipedia article should have, “Fillers (Animal Food)” has a good lead and is well balanced. The structure of the article, the point of view, and references could all be improved. The lead is very easy to understand and clearly states an overview of fillers in animal food. In terms of balance, each section is to the point without any unnecessary detail; however, there is not much structure to the article. It is easy to follow since it is quite short, but it just seems to be five points with no structure or flow to the article. The content seems to have a negative bias towards fillers in pet food. Twice it mentions about critics that claim fillers have little or no nutritional value, and are low grade fiber which have negative effects on the animal’s health. It also mentions about contaminated fillers leading to recalls, further implying a negative bias. Nothing is sourced and there are no references at the end of the article. This means one cannot be sure the information is accurate since there is no source or proof to back it up. This first statement in the article about what a filler is as well as the examples could be backed up by the peer reviewed journal article The Composition of Animal Feeds by Peter N. Wilson. The journal article Choosing Better Pet Food from the Journal Natural Solutions could be referenced to support the claim about fillers having little or no nutritional value. It could also be added from this source that pet food without fillers is more digestible by the animal. Overall the article is well written and easy to understand. It clearly gives a general overview of fillers in animal food. This article could be improved by adding references to support the points, especially when stating “According to Critics…” this should be backed up by a reliable source. Adding in references will greatly improve the article. Cockburl (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article was really enjoyable to read, it was nice and simple and pointed out main details. It was pretty short in length but it was jammed packed with some relevant information that stayed on topic. The article was decently structured but it lacked the flow, jumping from one detail to another. It started off very strong but towards the middle, it began to become a little bias. What I found to be misleading was the lack of proof and references backing up the statements that were said. Saying that "According to Critics" without and references backing it up didn't do it justice. Also, it is in my opinion, a little biased when it is presented in the critic's point of view. If only there were some supporting reliable backups to the "critics" statements to proof it, then it would have made a huge difference. The main issue that I felt that needed to be changed were that the materials needed to be referenced. Other than that, the article gave a very information filled overview. Once references are added in and proper citation inserted, this article will make a great addition to the pet food category. Byan7 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)