Wikipedia:Peer review/Food waste in the United Kingdom/archive1

Food waste in the United Kingdom

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to shortly submit it for FAC. In the recent weeks I have added substantial content, much of which has not received the same rigorous prose treatment as some of the older stuff. Mostly the article requires some minor copyediting, but I'm looking also for some advice on where to include major sources (WRAPs report on food waste) since I have already notes and references.

Thanks in advance! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, this seems fairly close to ready for FAC, but does need some wotrk. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * The lead image needs a fair use rational for this article (it has one, but for another article).
 * I found finding images for the lead to this article to be a big problem. Currently I wish to use the Love Food, Hate Waste logo for both its own article and this, although the template seems to only allow for one fair-use rationale.
 * Use the template twice (once per article the image is used in) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.


 * Please read MOS:QUOTE and WP:ITALIC - the quotation marks used should all be double quotes " but the article mixes these with single quotes ' (single quotes are used for a quote within a quote). It seems to me that the number of things in quotation marks could be cut down considerably. Do terms like sell by and best before really need to be in quotes, for example?
 * No I entirely agree on consideration.


 * The direct quote in the lead does need a ref, and I do not think it needs the ellipses (...)


 * I also felt the lead did not really summarize the whole article - it seemed to mostly summarize the first part (History). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * I tried to do that as well, but my speciality is certainly not leads! I'll try to balance the information from each header in the coming days.


 * When abbreviations like WI for Women's Institutes are used, they have to appear after the first use of the full name in parentheses
 * Oh yes, I had done this for other cases but appeared to miss this one.


 * The direct quote at the end of the History section repeats some things needlessly (the name and organization). MOSQUOTE says block quotes should be at least 4 lines long - this is 1.5 on my monitor. Also the first sentence of the blockquote about cutting edge technology has already been quoted before and seems repetitive in both places.
 * Didn't know the policy on block quotes specifically, so that has been changed.


 * Per the MOS, % should be spelled out "per cent"
 * Agreed. However as per the same style I have kept % for tables and images.


 * When making comparisons of statistics it is useful to give the actual number - for example I am really not sure what this sentence means exactly Families with children (under the age of 16) on a per individual per week basis, are shown to waste the least food by weight, but the most per capita.[17] If the amount wasted by weight and per capita were given in the text of the sentence, I think it would make it clearer.
 * That statement was particularly confusing I agree. In fact its information did not make sense, so it has been entirey changed.


 * Refs seem OK but there are a few places without refs that need then for FAC. For example, it has been featured in almost every major UK newspaper, invariably discussed alongside other prominent issues such as Climate change and famine in African nations. As a way of reducing the impact of the aforementioned, food waste is among the primary topics of discussion at International Summits. Food waste was debated at length during the 34th G8 summit in Hokkaidō, Japan, as part of the discussion on the 2007–2008 world food price crisis. needs a ref or two. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * The statement has been referenced and I will try to cover every uncited statement as per your rule of thumb.


 * Several of the notes also seem to need refs.
 * I assume this is directed at the first couple? I'm not so sure; by referencing them I would simply be directing them to the same source that appears alongside the notes themselves (in the table).
 * Yes - if you think the source us clear then this is probably ok Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Refs should be in numerical order
 * Is that not the case? I can't find anywhere this isn't the case (without multi-use sources of course).
 * Here's one Consumers can reduce food wastage during purchasing and at home by several methods:[33][25] Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both metric and English system untis should be used throughout (I assume metric first since they are official in the UK). This is done in some places, but needs to be done consistently - convert helps.
 * convert has been used a number of times, but if there are any omissions (that aren't tonnes (myself and OhanaUnited had a discussion over this)) I will apply this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ruhrfisch. Your comments were very useful and I would be happy to peer review another article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply, after making the final changes as you suggest I will probably do a few more of my own and then submit for FAC and the next phase of editorial torture! But it's all for a good cause, thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)