Wikipedia:Featured article review/Breastfeeding

Breastfeeding

 * No longer a featured article

Copied from WP:FAR


 * Featured status: As at 05:26, 13 October 2004
 * Difference: To 19:32, 28 July 2005

Unable to determine the original promoted version (apparently prior to October 2004).
 * Unexplained technical language used throughout
 * Poor formatting (--, "ibid", etc)
 * Poor writing ("Breastfeeding may hurt some women. Sometimes this is related to an incorrect technique, but it usually eases over time.", "After World War II Western medicine was taken to Japan and the women began giving birth in hospitals, where the baby was usually taken to the nursery and fed formula.")
 * Lead lacks mention of controversies surrounding breastfeeding, and any mention of declining breastfeeding rates in the face of encouragement from governments etc
 * Poorly and haphasardly referenced
 * Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many.


 * It is impossible to cite a valid source recommending bottle feeding over breastfeeding vs. hundreds to thousands demonstrating clear benefit. An article about suicide will narurally be biased against the practice as well.Williamwells 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In short: this article would never survive an FA nomination today. See the talk page for more examples. Stevage 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that got it to FA status. Since then I've given up battling with people coming along and changing it quite drastically.  It is now quite different to how it was when it was accepted as an FA, and the quality drop is quite obvious.  I considered FARCing it myself.  violet/riga (t) 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a pity. So how does one get an actual review to take place? Stevage 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Best thing to do is to escalate this to WP:FARC. violet/riga (t) 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In relation to the last comment (bias), yes it has been the target of pro-breastfeeding groups, but by presenting the facts (it is the best method recommended by all medical associations) it will inherently appear biased. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. The article has been messed around so much and does not meet many minimum standards of FA status.  violet/riga (t) 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove as per nominator. Put it out of its misery. I note that there's no coverage of the micronutrients in breastmilk and their impact on cognitive performance. There's an interesting body of research on this. WHO recommendations not mentioned. Tony 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be covered in the breast milk article though. violet/riga (t) 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me yearn for a static version, to prevent articles deteriorating thanks to non-vandalistic but bad edits. Worldtraveller 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove too much point form, reads like an instruction manual. Plus per nominator. Andjam 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove I'm not sure if I or violetriga is the nominator. Anyway, it's a real pity, and hopefully it can be fixed and restored soon. Stevage 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, unformatted references, bare links in the article, and inappropriate tone. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)