Talk:Food power/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've done a quick couple of read throughs. This looks a reasonable article. I think it could could with some more wikilinks, those that are present seem to be randomly placed, not at their first occurrence. I will possibly clean those up as I go along. A few more relevant illustrations, if they could be found, would certaintly help this article.

I'm now doing to do a more detailed review of the article, against WP:WIAGA, taking it section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Any comments that I make at this stage will only be in respect of "problems". However, all the good points, etc, will be picked up at the end in my Overall summary. Pyrotec (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In-line citations and References -


 * There is already a comment on the article's talkpage, added by another editor, about the correct use of references. I suggest that you take note of it.
 * This article uses a limited number of references, but uses them multiple times:
 * Some of these references are books. In order to WP:verify statements, the book's page number, or page numbers, should be provided. This may mean spliting some of these book references into groups of related pages and using them in that way (see for instance the use of the book "Lunn" in Atherton, Greater Manchester which is also under review and will gain GA-status). If you need more information on what to do, leave a note on this page and I will respond here.
 * You are also using so fairly long journal articles, Wallensteen, for instance is 21 pages long. In these case a page number, or page numbers, should be provided. As these are web-based sources, the access date should also be provided (see cite journal).

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Historical Background -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Its not entirely clear what ref 2 is meant to be, as judging from from the ref it could be the book, the review of the book, or both. This uncertainty needs to be removed; and if the book is being cited, then page numbers are required for the citation.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Ref 3 was incorrectly cited. It was not Clifton B. Luttrell, The Russian Grain Embargo: Dubious Success, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 1980, but Clifton B. Luttrell, "The Russian Grain Embargo: Dubious Success", in: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, August-September 1980. I corrected it. As a web resource, a access date is still required.


 * Policy -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - The second paragraoh in Policy contains a direct quotation: "“Food is a weapon” Earl Butz", a citation must be provided for this quotation.


 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Food power and food security -
 * Ref 5 is incorrectly specified. It is not Simon Maxwell, Food security: a post-modern perspective, ScienceDirect, 1996. The author, the title of the paper and the year are at least correct. It appears, from ScienceDirect, to have been published in Volume 21, Issue 2, May 1996, of the Journal Food Policy. It needs to be correctly cited, and as it is a 15-page paper, a page number, or pages numbers, need to be provided.


 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Food Power and Embargoes -
 * Ref 6 is improperly specified, its merely a link to a hosting service.


 * Conditions & Employment -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Ref 4 is a 21-page pdf journal report; and the relevant journal page mumbers are correctly given. However, it is being used 26 times; and in this particular case, the relevant page number, or page numbers, should be provided as part of the various in-line citations.


 * North America -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Its not clear to me why you have a section North America with a subsection United States inside it. The only country that is being discussed in the section is the USA.

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How much of those issues have been addressed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is intended to provide both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points.
 * The lead is rather short: it does provide an introducion, but fails to summarise the main points. I would suggest that you think about:
 * The USA and Sudan as the "extremes" of "big" and "small" Food Power;
 * What conditions are necessary to use Food Power; and what are mitigating factors.

Pyrotec (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed ref 5 and we removed ref 6 because it was only citing one sentence. We could not find access to that site again so we simply removed the cite and the sentence. I have also done the page numbers in the way that Piotr showed me how. Working on the Lead now.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still not right. It aught to be: Simon Maxwell, "Food security: a post-modern perspective", Food Policy, Volume 21, Issue 2, May 1996, pg.157. The following ref is also wrong. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to work on the lead --ShaqSmith (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay i have fixed the Simon Maxwell ref, is it correct now? I am not sure what is wrong with the next one.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From the article history, you fixed both of them at the same time. Pyrotec (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Progress has, perhaps, been slower than I would have liked; but the article can now be considered to be compliant with WP:WIAGA. Congratulations on your acheivements. Pyrotec (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you....is there anything that could be done even though the article has achieved GA status? ShaqSmith (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As you ask. I didn't particularly like the WP:lead (the bit before the Contents) which is why I did quite a bit of work on it before I awarded GA status. A bit more editing would help it. The History section is quite "thin", perhaps you could add some information on the OPEC oil "ransom" as an introduction to what could later be done with food power. I know it is mentioned briefly in the Policy section which follows it, but more summarised info might help this article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)