Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:04, 21 September 2014.

List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status

 * Nominator(s): Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe if fulfills all of the FL criteria:
 * Prose: It features professional standards of writing;
 * Lead: I think the lead sums up the list and its scope well, including inclusion criteria and sourcing.
 * Comprehensiveness: List includes all items listed by the European Commission as having protected geographic status, with a brief description of the restrictions placed on each product.
 * Structure: The list is well laid out, and has been separated into section headings based on the 'classes' they are divided into by the European Commission.
 * Style: The list complies with the MOS. Is visually appealing and makes use of appropriate, free-use images.
 * Stable: The list is stable, and will only need updating if/when more items are approved for registration or removed (only one product has been removed since implementation of the schemes in 1993). Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments - I will do a full review of this later, but don't have the time right this moment (lunch break about to end :-)). As a start, I noticed this:
 * "Limited to hops prepared, processed and produced in specific area of Kent" => "Limited to hops prepared, processed and produced in a specific area of Kent"
 * Fixed, thanks. Sotakei T 15:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More to come........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More comments as far down as the end of fruit and veg...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No reason to bold "United Kingdom food and drink products" in the lead
 * "relatively few when compared to France (217 protected status products), Italy (267) and Portugal (125)" - would seem to make more sense to put these in numerical order, either ascending or descending
 * Same for the next sentence
 * "described as a "traditional unimproved breeds"." - if "breeds" is meant to be plural then the "a" shouldn't be there
 * "using only birds over 20 weeks old, have been dry plucked, hung to mature and eviscerated after this period of hangin" - this doesn't read grammatically correctly, suggest the word "which" is missing after "birds"
 * "Products must be no more than 12 months old at the time of slaughter" - seems a bit odd to refer to the animals when they were still alive as "products"?? This applies in a few places in the first table
 * "cows milk" (with an apostrophe) is used in a few places, this doesn't look right to me.....
 * "using tradition or commercial methods" => "using traditional or commercial methods"
 * "Limited to potatoes produced in an area bounded by Ardkeen, in the south," - first comma not needed
 * "Limited to rhubarb produced with the Rhubarb Triangle" => "Limited to rhubarb produced within the Rhubarb Triangle"
 * All fixed, thanks. Sotakeit 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Protected from what? The intro does not do a good job at explaining that. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even more comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nergaal above, it isn't really clear as it stands what the impact/benefits of the status are. Something along the lines of this should be added: "The purpose of the law is to protect the reputation of the regional foods, promote rural and agricultural activity, help producers obtain a premium price for their authentic products, and eliminate the unfair competition and misleading of consumers by non-genuine products, which may be of inferior quality or of different flavour.  Foods such as Gorgonzola, Parmigiano-Reggiano, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Piave cheese, Asiago cheese, Camembert, Somerset Cider Brandy and Champagne can only be labelled as such if they come from the designated region" (copied from Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union)
 * "Products much be produced using traditional methods" => "Products must be produced using traditional methods"
 * "Limited to sardines that have been caught within six miles of the coast of Cornish coast" - ???
 * "Limited to Atlantic salmon caught up to 1500 meters" - we are talking about Britain here, so the spelling of metre is wrong
 * "Products must use grapes from vines growing at a height below 220 meters" - same here
 * That appears twice in the wine section, in fact............
 * abv is only wikilinked the fourth or fifth time it appears - it should be linked the first time
 * Fixed. In regards to the explanation in the lead, I've gone for: The purpose of the scheme is to protect the reputation of regional products, promote traditional and agricultural activity and to eliminate non-genuine products, which may mislead consumers or be of inferior quality or different character. - how does that sound? Sotakeit 08:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that it needs to say explicitly that it is protected from being reproduced in other places and commercialized under the name listed here. People know what a patent is, but a protected drink? Nergaal (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, any better? Sotakeit 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks clear now. I would use yhe Scotch example though since that is by far the most widely known entry, and give specifics in one sentence. Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, example updated to Scotch :) Sotakeit (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a closer look now, and I am happy with the first paragraph. However, the rest of the intro is just too much about the regulation, and too little about the actual list. I think a lot of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th para can be mover into the first section, and just keep the essence there. Then you could add another para about the items on this list, or some statistics (idk, maybe how many are edable and not, how many fit into the 3 categories?). Also, is there a rationale for these particular subsections (i.e. the legislation actually splits them into these categories?). And the former protected item: when was it removed? Nergaal (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nergaal. Okay, so I've moved more information into the first paragraph and extended what is now paragraph 2 to give a little more information on the list's contents. I've also attempted to explain in paragraph 3 why the list has been categorised as such. Finally, I've added the date that protected status was removed for Newcastle Brown Ale. Sotakeit (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit better, but what I was thinking is move most of the legislation stuff into the first section and maybe call it something like legislation. That way the "boring" stuff is not in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nergaal: I've moved some of it down into the first section and renamed it "legislation" as suggested. I wanted to keep some explanation in the intro of what exactly the scheme is, so haven't altered it too much, mainly moving the more technical part that actually talks about which laws govern the schemes. Sotakeit (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See if the format I left works for you. I would prefer some more discussion on the actual 57 products but that might be impractical. The only issue I have left is with  "meat, dairy and fish products, honey, fruits and vegetables ... beverages made from plant extracts, bread, pasta, pastries, cakes, biscuits and confectionery". What is with the quotes and the "..."? I don't know where you got this from, but how about actually list all the edible entries here and put in parenthesis how many of them are in the 56 items. E.g.: "meat (101), diary (2), beferages (5), bread (1), etc." Nergaal (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nergaal: Your amendment is much neater, thanks. Regarding the ""meat, dairy and fish products, honey, fruits and vegetables ..." section, I've not listed all the edible entries and their numbers as this could be a little messy and, after all, that's what the list itself is for. I have listed the three most common types (cheese, meat and fish) and given their number. How does that look? Sotakeit (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support but please fix the total. I counted around 66 items on this list not 57. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, try to wikilink a few of the less common terms like offal and rhubarb. Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed the total. My bad - I was looking at the total on the DOOR database, forgetting that wines and spirit drinks aren't listed on there. Sotakeit (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to also fix this bit: "Most of the products hold either PGI (32) or PDO (23) status, with only two products being designated as TSG." - that still adds up to 57 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Silly me! Fixed. Sotakeit (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I've only had a brief look over this article, but I can already see just too many manual of style errors for me to support. This was an ambitious article to improve, as there are really no other featured lists that cover a similar subject, and I'm sure that, when it does reach FL status, it will set the precedent for similar lists to follow. But, in its current state, I'm not sure that it is yet at FL standard. I think this article still needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish the participating editors all the best in improving it. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The referencing seems quite odd to me. Sfn is really only needed if you're citing the same source repeatedly, but it seems like most of the sources given in the Sources section are linked to just once in the References section – why not just cite them directly using ?
 * The section headers don't seem as concise as they could be. Wouldn't something like, say, "Baked goods" be just as precise as "Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares"? The parenthetical remarks containing "etc." can probably be omitted, and I think "Fresh meat and offal" would be preferable to "Fresh meat (and offal)".
 * Per MOS:ALLCAPS, the words in all caps should be replaced with either sentence or title case.
 * Per MOS:DTT, each table needs row scopes, column scopes and table captions.
 * Spaced hypens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
 * There are colons with either spaces on both sides (i.e. " : "), or no spaces at all. Ideally, you need just one on the right-hand side.
 * The captions for the two images need terminating full stops.
 * Major geographical locations (such as countries) don't need to be wikilinked.
 * Why isn't "Traditionally farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots pork" sorted under T?
 * Similarly, "Anglesey sea salt/Halen Môn" needs to be above "East Kent goldings".
 * What's the difference between "English wine" and "English regional wine"? This wasn't clear to me.
 * "References & sources" -> "References and sources"
 * A Thousand Doors:
 * Referencing: I went with Sfn so there wasn't a glut of writing in the coding. The names of some of the EC articles are quite long, and the links even longer, so I thought this style be a little easier to edit for future editors.
 * Section headers: They're taken word-for-word from the EC section titles. Would you think it better to explain this in the article, or still cut them down? I understand in their current format, they are a little long winded.
 * Spaced hypens, image captions, alpabetisation, "References & sources", row/col scope, colon spacing, capitalisation, overlinking (hopefully), wine explanation: fixed. Sotakeit (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This nomination appears to have stalled. I am thus archiving it.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.