Talk:Veganism/GA1

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I will do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD
 * "Distinctions are sometimes made between different types of vegans and veganism" seems to say that different types of vegans are distinguished from veganism. I would add "between different types of" in front of veganism or restructure the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "other areas of their lives"??? E.G.??--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do "Environmental vegetarianism" eat fewer, the same or more things than other vegans.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph seems quite detailed. Make sure this is written as an overview.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Make sure the LEAD includes a summary of each section of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should distinguish veganism from vegetarianism and the LEAD should summarize that difference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that the first section introduces vegetarianism well. Make sure the LEAD summarizes each section of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, I've made a few edits that I hope address your concerns. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly does fortified mean? Is there a link?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between an RDA and daily supplement?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you leave terms unlinked that you link later in the main body?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I link on the first reference of relevance, so I would need an example. Would you mind if we leave linking issues until the end of the review for now? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 19th century
 * Places like Georgia, Surrey, England and Harvard, Massachusetts should be linked. They are not so famous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Late 19th–early 20th century: Shift toward veganism
 * I don't understand Ghandi's moral issue.
 * I can see that killing animals might be immoral to some. Milking cows does not seem immoral.
 * Why is goat's milk more moral than cow's milk?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To obtain cow's milk, the cow has to be kept pregnant. The calves are then removed, and killed immediately or later for veal and leather. The process for goat's milk is the same (though at that time Gandhi believed it was worse for cows, which is why he would not drink cow's milk). In addition to the calves being killed, animals are kept in poor conditions on factory farms. See the brief section on milk and eggs. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the United States
 * "Harris Interactive" should be linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Outside the United States
 * Link periodicals such as The Times and The Independent--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not to link terms that have no bearing on veganism, per WP:OVERLINK. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Avoidance
 * One of the more common items that I think you are missing in your listing is goose down (used in coats and pillows) (and other feathers). I presume [Feather#Human_usage|these uses]] are out. Also I hear stories that horses were used in glues, but I am not sure about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added goose down and duck feathers. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you say bedding? What about coats? Does bedding include sleeping bags? What about feathers used for other purposes like writing or ornamentation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are only examples. Animal products are ubiquitous, so we can't mention everything. I mentioned bedding only because you wanted goose down to be included, and the most common use of goose and duck down/feathers is bedding. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether using one of the GAN templates would make it easier to focus on the GA criteria? I think a template would help me to follow what was okay and what not. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Health arguments
 * I would look for links for these terms that most readers wont know: degenerative diseases, including coronary artery disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, kidney disease and dementia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is full of disease names, food names, publication titles. If I were to link them all, it would be a sea of blue. I take a conservative view of linking, per WP:OVERLINK, and as this is a preference issue, I'd like to stick with "less is more." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * " He writes that vegans tend to be thinner, with lower serum cholesterol and lower blood pressure." - Does this mean healthier people choose to become vegans or that becoming a vegan makes one healthier?
 * The term Pescetarianism should be introduced much earlier, IMO.
 * Is there also a term for poultry meat only consumers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The implication is that going vegan helps with weight loss, reduces serum cholesterol, etc, because vegan diets tend to be lower in calories, saturated fat and cholesterol. The review article that comes from can be read here. The term for people who eat poultry is pollotarian, but that and pescetarianism have nothing to do with veganism. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Vitamin B12
 * Uncommon terms to consider linking: cell division, the formation and maturation of red blood cells, the synthesis of DNA, and for normal nerve function.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've linked some. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Protein
 * Why aren't peanuts mentioned in this section. I use to be a competitive weightlifter and my midday snack use to be an amino acid (lysine, arginine and ornithine) shake and peanuts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence to the protein section listing more sources of plant protein, including peanuts. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Calcium
 * Rare terms to consider linking: bone health, and for a number of metabolic functions, including muscle function, vascular contraction and vasodilation, nerve transmission, intracellular signalling and hormonal secretion.
 * Other dietary terms: hazelnuts, kale, broccoli and turnip; spinach. (assuming first use)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've linked a few. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Vitamin D
 * Lots of terms in the first paragraph as well as metabolism.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pregnancy, babies and children
 * The American Dietetic Association writes--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dietary, ethical, and environmental perspectives
 * "There are three categories of vegan: dietary vegans,... ethical vegans, ... and environmental vegans,..." seems to be an introductory level statement that should not be buried half way into the article. Is there any way to move this to a more prominent position in the text. I.e. (looking at the table of contents, section 5 seems important enough to be section 1 or 2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's explained prominently in the lead, and referenced throughout the text. The philosophy of each position is then explained at the end (though there isn't a philosophy associated with the diet only). We can't place the long philosophical discussion in front of the basic information about the history and what vegans eat. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tony, I have a concern, which I hope you don't mind me expressing. The only issue here is whether the article is consistent with the good article criteria. My concern is that you're looking at it according to whether you would have written it this way, or linked it this way, etc. Asking that we link words like turnip, and perhaps include that writing with feathers would not be vegan, suggest that you're looking at things you might have preferred to include. But see What the Good article criteria are not. That's not to say that your input hasn't led to improvements, because it has, and I'm grateful for your time and attention. But I would prefer to focus only on the GA criteria, and in my view this article does fulfill them. I didn't nominate it, though I did write a lot of it (and I didn't know it was going to be nominated until it was already done), so I'm feeling somewhat forced to be involved, which isn't helping. I'd therefore appreciate if we could just get through the GA criteria checklist, or if you think the article isn't good enough, fail it. Again, I hope you don't mind me expressing this concern; it's just that I'm feeling a bit squished. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Philosophy
 * The quote you give for Peter Singer is a strong affirmative, but you explain it with a double negative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would help if you told me which Singer quote. :) I can only see two, and neither seem to fit that description. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Resources and the environment
 * "rice cultivation cause similar problems" - the mechanical/industrial cultivation or just the plant life?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Debate over animals killed in crop harvesting
 * accidental human deaths???--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tony, I looked again at the GA criteria, and they say that the main writers should be consulted before an article is nominated. I wasn't consulted and would have withdrawn it immediately if I had known that. Do you mind if I withdraw it now? I feel that this review just isn't working out, and it's not something I would have chosen to do. I'd therefore prefer to add the withdrawn template to the talk page if you don't mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First where at WP:WIAGA does it suggest a main editor must be consulted? Assuming you are correct, here are the edit counts
 * 1) -746
 * 2) -654
 * 3) -287
 * 4) -164
 * 5) -162
 * 6) -148
 * 7) -123
 * 8) -113
 * 9) -100
 * The article has at least 100 people with 10 or more edits to the page according to the edit counters. Unless there is one editor who is responsible for the majority of the edits or the content, I don't think that there really is a main editor. I don't think any single editor of this article can block a WP:GAN nomination without running afoul of WP:OWN. I can not compel any editor to respond to my concerns. Thus, the nomination might fail by lack of response if the nominator does not actually respond himself. However, I don't think any one editor should block another major editor from nominating this article. You are free not to help the nomination, but I don't see blocking it as appropriate in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought there was a "withdrawn" template, but I must have misread the page, because I can't find one. I began a rewrite of the article a year or so ago (or longer), and I've re-written almost all of it, so I am the main editor of the current version. The GA page says: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Also, I was the only person responding to your points, even though I didn't agree with the nomination. I've therefore removed the GA nomination tag from the talk page. If I had known about it early enough, and had known that the main writers had to be consulted, I'd have done it before the review began, so I'm sorry that I'm doing it late in the day. Thank you for the time you spent on this; knowing it was being read certainly helped it to improve, as did your suggestion for the protein section. I hope it's okay with you that I've withdrawn it. If it isn't, then obviously I can't stop you from continuing to review it, but I hope you won't. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Whilst I very much appreciate all your great work on improving this article, given my edit count, I doubt this applies in this case. No good Wikipedia article is only one individual's work. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your talk page edit. I do not concur that you are the main editor, in the sense that you mean it. has made a valid nomination and you should reach a consensus with him before withdrawing the nomination. I would like to hear what the nominator has to say regarding the nomination. You are also free to point out problems with the nomination that would lead me to believe it should not be promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As per SlimVirgin's comment, I appreciate your time on this review and editorial input but it does seem to be going way beyond the scope of what a GA review should entail. The review is getting microscopic in detail. As a good article is just the first stage in achieving featured article status, I was under the impression that the initial review would look similar to this. I would suggest that the review (if you can spare the time) is redone per Reviewing good articles. Thank you again for your efforts in approving this article. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. you don't like my review. O.K. I can't stop you from shopping for a quickie review. I will close this nomination. Nomination WITHDRAWN by nominator and primary respondent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)