Talk:Mandatory country-of-origin labeling (US)

Chicken
I believe chicken is also a covered commodity? Per the Dept of Agriculture Interim Final Rule - does anyone know if this became law? Trevor216.254.190.174 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Analysis section
The Analysis section of the article is not cited at all, yet presents arguments for and against this bill. Without any citations it's unclear if this section is original research or not, since it never names who was/is for or against this. In any case, without any citation whatsoever, it seems fairly unencyclopedic. 76.105.6.113 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged as unreferenced. -- Beland (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Many issues with this article
This article has a number of problems

1. Potential Copyright violations

The lead section is almost identical to the opening paragraph of a report published by the Canadian Government. (See: https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0302-e.pdf)

2. Narrow focus on US Legislation The article focuses on US legislation. Yet most countries have country of origin labelling. For instance, Australia changed all its COO labels earlier this year. In short, the article lacks an international focus.

3. Country of origin labelling is a concept as well as a piece of legislation It is not clear why this article launches straight into discussing legislation, without first defining what is meant by country of origin labels, why they are important, etc.

4. Excessive unreferenced material: Too much material is unreferenced.

BronHiggs (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't see how the two paragraphs are "nearly identical". They both start with a definition of the subject and then continue by noting what the piece of legislation covered. That basic format could be used by a lot of different sources. In this case, the wording isn't nearly identical, so I don't see any copyright infringement.
 * 4. (I fixed the second "3." to "4." in your comment) I added a cleanup tag to the top of the article noting that additional references are needed.
 * 2/3. The title of the article is in all capital letters (thus indicating a proper noun) and the subject is the U.S. legislation. There is a hatnote at the very top of the article that states "For country of origin labeling in general, see Country of origin." That article discussed country of origin labels in general in the section Country of origin. Country of origin labeling is a redirect to Country of origin. Per WP:DIFFCAPS:
 * The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours.
 * I did a quick Google search and a lot of sources used the proper noun "Country of Origin Labeling" (COOL) or "Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling" (MCOOL) for this, so it seems to be the MOS:COMMONNAME and thus the appropriate title for the article. I changed the hatnote in this article to use Template:About and provide a brief description of the subject of this article ("This article is about a former U.S. regulation on country of origin labeling."). I also changed the redirect for Country of origin labeling to go to Country of origin and added a hatnote there to lead readers to this article. AHeneen (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)