Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shrimp farm

Shrimp farm
A quick comment of mine led to some research that kept me occupied for several weeks. The peer review was rather unspectacular, and I think it's ready to be discussed here, although an anon recently said the article should be even more critical (see Talk:Shrimp farm). Lupo 09:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support The "Economy" section could be expanded but I think this article is ready for FA status anyway. Nice use of free license images, too. --malathion talk 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have any particular ideas on how to expand that section on economy? Lupo 09:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Has been expanded and reworked significantly. Lupo 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Quality work. Everyking 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Support interesting and informative, good work! --PopUpPirate 11:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I think the article has good "bones", but is a ways away from FA quality.  Here's a few points to start with:
 * First off, thanks for these pertinent comments. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Title - if there is a freshwater prawn farming article, this should probably be titled marine prawn farming or some such, not just "shrimp farm" seeing as it only covers half of that topic.
 * I disagree. In most cases, when people talk about "shrimp farms", they talk about the type of farms described in the article. Also, did you see the usage note on "shrimp" vs. "prawn"? "Shrimp farm" appears to be the common term. Feel free to create redirects as you feel are needed, though. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe this can be addressed with a rewording of the message at the top. I will try to fix it. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Organization - I think it would read much better if the article were reorganized; I would like a section close to the beginning that explains the basic theory and methodology of shrimp farming; I would like "life cycle of shrimps" to be integrated with that explanation; I would like the various types of farms ("extensive" to "very intensive") sectioned separately and explained coherently. Other changes would fall out of such a reorganization.
 * We now have "History and geography", followed by "Life cycle", "Species", "Technologies". The latter gives a brief run-down of the basic theory and methodology. "Species" comes first because I thought it important to state first what these techniques are applied to. I'll make "Life-cycle" a sub-section of "Species", though. I won't do a more global reorganization because I'm content with the current one and I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Maybe you could show me? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will address on article talk page. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We simply disagree on this one. Interested third parties: see the article's talk page. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Avoid repetition - some facts are repeated a couple times in the body of the text (notably, production); the best data should be used once to make a table and the rest deleted.
 * Production data is all from FIGIS, rounded. It makes no sense to provide data with more accuracy: first, the FAO databases may contain estimates anyway, and second, production fluctuates regionally. There is some overlap between the "History" and the "Economy" sections (market share and such)&mdash;I'll see what I can do about this. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed, IMO. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Define techical terms - several technical terms are left undefined; these should be defined briefly and if necessary linked to an explanatory article. (Striking peremptorily assuming it will be addressed per talk page)
 * Which terms? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will address on talk page. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Still waiting, despite my having asked twice more... Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down, doing the best I can. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Missing information:
 * There is very little discussion of "sustenance" shrimp farming - it is only implied.
 * That's because I have found no information on sustainable industrial shrimp farming. Note that programs to work in that direction are very recent; for instance, I have found no information that the World Bank/NACA/WWF/FAO programme had any noticeable impact on shrimp farming practices. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant small-scale low-intensity shrimp farming. I found one link (on talk page), will look for more. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would like to see more, and more objective discussion. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to know what you are talking about. How about taking a shot at it yourself? Lupo 20:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think subsistence farming of shrimp is a widespread practice as I haven't found any information on that. Shrimp farming is an export-oriented business (note that most of the producer countries do not have sizeable home markets for shrimps). Lupo 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * A few years ago there was a big hubbub in the USA about farmed shrimp being too cheap and driving shrimp boaters on the Gulf of Mexico out of business. There was lots of arm waving and some discussion of tariffs, followed by counterthreats... a full-blown international trade fiasco.  This needs to be explored in some depth.
 * Well, the interaction between shrimp farming and shrimp fishery could be explored... thanks for the idea. I think farming supplements fishing, though&mdash;IIRC, annual catches also rise constantly. I'll go check FIGIS. Do you have any links on the incident you mentioned? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * One link found, will look for more. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Allright, I think I got it. I think you mean the "anti-dumping case". Is mentioned now. Lupo 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I want more discussion than half a sentence. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an article on shrimp farming, not the U.S. foreign trade relations. Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is not discussion of the economics of the farms themselves - are they highly or barely profitable? Have poor rural rice farmers been able to supplement their income with small shrimp farms?
 * I'll see what I can write about the social impacts of shrimp farming. On the profitability of individual farms: I'm not sure this can be answered in any meaningful way because it depends on too many factors. The figures given in and many of the assumptions made there for one particular experimental type of farm would be utterly meaningless for an extensive farm in, say, Ecuador. I'd expect the profitability to vary greatly by region and from year to year. It may be very difficult to find average values for farms in one region, but let's try. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dealt with, IMO. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Inadequate in length and colored by anti-shrimp farming POV. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Scuse me?? Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Any information on benefits / risks of farmed shrimp as a food? Farmed salmon are controversial because they may have higher levels of certain pollutants (among other reasons).  Maybe shrimp do too; or maybe they are bigger, firmer, more consistent... I'd like to know.
 * Do I understand you correctly that you basically want to know why the demand for shrimp has grown so much? I'm not sure I'll be able to answer that... Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking is whether or not the market discriminates at all between farm-raised and wild-caught shrimp, and if so for what reasons. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. AFAIK, as far as the farmed species are considered, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, a recent import ban by the U.S. on Thai shrimp was issued because Thai fishers generally do not use TEDs, although 95% of the country's shrimp production comes from farms. (IIRC, this is the second time this happens, a first time was in 1996.) I would have to check, but I'd guess similar bans on shrimp imports due to Chloramphenicol contamination (a problem that is present only in farmed shrimp) also covered caught wild shrimp from these countries. Some caught shrimp are sold under a "turtle safe" certification, but I haven't investigated how serious this certification is and what its marketing importance is; that whole issue of turtle protection and bycatch is more appropriate for the Shrimp fishery article. Of course, there is a market segmentation between different species; the small shrimp caught in the North Sea (Pandalus borealis) widely consumed in Europe play in a different league than the much larger farmed Penaeids. Other than that, the reason why farming was "invented" at all are summarized at the beginning of the "technology" section. Lupo 14:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * POV - this is a biggie; the article is pretty strong on pointing out the detrimental effects of shrimp farming, but does not discuss the positives. Obviously, people in developing countries are employed or given a supplemental cash flow.  Shrimp farming helps sate the global demand for shrimp.  There must be some effect of decreased pressure on wild fishing stocks.
 * "People are employed..." - For some background, see Genuine Progress Indicator. It's not that simple. I'll see what I can do... (related to the social impacts mentioned above) "...helps sate the demand" is mentioned. "decreased pressure on wild stocks" - As I wrote above, I'll check the FIGIS databases, but I don't think so. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, let me just point out a few more things: if the negative side of shrimp farming gets so much coverage, this is not through any intent of mine. Might it not just be an indication that shrimp farming is indeed a highly problematic industry, at least with current technologies? And shrimp fishery, BTW, is problematic, too. It uses bottom trawling with a massive bycatch problem and causing severe destruction in the benthic zone. From what I've discovered, the social side of shrimp farming isn't exactly rosy, either... For now, I'll just post at the article's talk page an assorted link collection I intend to use for a new "social impacts" section. If you find positive links, add them there! I'm a bit dismayed that I didn't find any... Lupo 10:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you seem to be "against" shrimp farming (and for that matter shrimp fishing too). Obviously people engage in shrimp farming because it is in some way beneficial to them (increased income, productivity, etc.).  You have explored the problems of shrimp farming, but there must be some benefits to somebody. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Expanded the sections on "economy" (exploring some of the perceived benefits of shrimp farming) and on "ecology" (mentioning some of the industry's responses to come to grips with these problems). Still waiting for Bantman to review it. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some copyediting is also in order.
 * Please help, especially on the last two points. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will help as I can, and strike out my objections as they are addressed; I will move further discussion to the article's talk page.
 * Still waiting. Bantman has stated on the article's talk page that he didn't want to rewrite the article himself. (That said, I don't think a rewrite is in order. But unless some native speaker fixes any grammatical goofs I may have made or points them out to me, I can't do anything about that.) Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * -Bantman 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't mean to be difficult, although I'm sure it appears otherwise. I firmly believe that the article should be reorganized as I suggested.  The more I look at the article, the more it screams POV as anti-shrimp farming (honestly, I have half a mind to slap a NPOV tag on it, except that would be such poor manners).  Unfortunately, Lupo has addressed my less important objections and ignored my biggest concerns.  Therefore I will affirm my oppose vote with little expectation of changing it unless my concerns are addressed more fully. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have ignored your biggest concerns? I don't think so. Did I really misunderstand you that badly? Lupo 20:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a case of misunderstanding. We have agreed to disagree on the organization and overall structure of the article; in my opinion your refusal to reorganize constitutes a perfectly valid reason to object on the grounds of not being good writing.  I have pointed out that the article is quite opinionated against shrimp farming; it continues to read that way and I will continue to call POV as I see it.  Again IMO, this is an even more valid reason to object.  Both of these objections are actionable.  Under FAC guidelines, it is your responsibility to address actionable objections, not mine as a voter.  I have tried to give you assistance via constructive criticism and suggestions; if you choose not to carry my suggestions through there is nothing I can do about it, short of doing it myself which I choose not to do.  You also have to realize that your dedication to the article as an author is much higher than mine as a voter.  I have no animosity toward you or your article, and I hope that we can continue to keep things cordial. - Bantman 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I never questioned the validity of your vote or opinion, so don't insinuate that I did. However, I find your accusations of bias rather unspecific. This process is not about "author vs. others", it's about making articles better! Lupo 06:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't want to quarrel. I apologize if I made any untoward insinuations - it was not my intention. That said, I'm afraid I'm losing interest in this topic.  You can lead a horse to water, and all that.  I suggest that you re-read my reorganization proposal and pay attention to the specifics; it is a big job (which is one reason I didn't want to tackle it) and is not much addressed by the rather cosmetic section move recently made.  The POV issue is hard to point out specifics on because it is pervasive; I recommend you try to either a) find another editor with a more neutral POV who wants to help you, or b) rewrite the article from scratch playing "devil's advocate", and then use the two versions to create an NPOV mixture of the two.  As it is, it is fairly obvious that the main author is quite against shrimp farming... the first step is admitting that is the case, and then trying to overcome it through careful attention to your biases. Good luck with the article; I really do hope it improves, but the article / topic just doesn't inspire me to do it myself.  From now on, I will be limiting my further attention to this article and FAC nom to occasional reviews to see if my concerns have been addressed, at which time I would be happy to change my vote. - Bantman 17:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks like another great article, Lupo. Most of the above seems taken care of in my opinion, though I am certainly not an expert on the subject. I only have a few observations: 1) the difference between intensive and extensive methods doesn't seem explained anywhere, though I had thought it had been in past versions of the article. If that's an important distinction it should be explained early, if not, simply explain it quickly the first time either term is used. 2) The very prominent initial placement of the species list seems a bit out of place. That seems like too much detail for that soon in the article. How the farms work and their impact seems much more high level, overview information, which means it should be placed before the detailed species list. 3) This sentence in the economy section is not terribly clear: "This accounts for 25% of the total shrimp production from farming and wild catch that year." I think that means farming is 25% of the total shrimp production, and if so, even just parentheses around "from farming and wild catch" would make that clearer. Other than that, looks great. - Taxman Talk 01:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Taxman. I'll see what I can do about (1). On (2): User:Bantman thinks so, too. My problem is: I believe the life cycle must be explained before the technologies, otherwise there will be lots of forward references. The life cycle seems to be explained best in the "species" section. Maybe someone with greater language skills than I could move up the "technology" section before "species", but I don't see how to do it. The article currently explains "what do you farm?" before answering "how do you farm". On (3): done. Lupo 07:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about the lifecycle information that needs to be right after the species stuff. Simply move the species section down, and leave the lifecycle as the first thing in what is now the technology section. You may want to rename the section from technology to reflect that it is about shrimp farming methods in general and not just the technology. - Taxman Talk 18:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... will try that out tomorrow. Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm not very happy with it, though, but what the heck. Should also take care of Bryan's (Bantman's) reorganization objection. Lupo 09:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Outstanding article. I am especially impressed by all the references in the body of the text. About the POV concerns of Bantman, I personally think the article is well rounded, and includes both the Pro's and Con's of shrimp farming. Judging which one is more important is difficult to do, and I think just stating the (available) facts is the best approach. Hence unconditional support for the article. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)