Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paleolithic-style diet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phenylalanine (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 24 February 2008 (→Paleolithic-style diet: edited my reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Paleolithic-style diet

Check external links

Self-nominator Phenylalanine (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you propose the content in lists be reorganized? In my eyes, this information cannot really be presented in another clear manner, as the alternative seems to be long, ungainly sentences. Kakofonous (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A table could help. Cheers. Trance addict 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added tables. I hope it's ok. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the tables. They take way too much place and they just don't look good (see [1]). --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the bullet lists a bit. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Although the article is well-balanced the Lead is not, with just a couple of sentences at the end giving a contrary view; the tone of this section comes across as prescriptive and advocatory. This may have arisen because the Lead is too long, or is it missing some qualifiers such as controversial, thought by some to be and so forth. I see no problems with the body of the article; it is well written and cited and most importantly, IMHO, it is interesting. I'll watch this space and revise my opinion accordingly should future edits address my concerns.--GrahamColmTalk 11:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the lead paragraphs as per your suggestions. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Lead is much better and now reflects a well-balanced, informative and neutral article. --GrahamColmTalk 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (PS. you were right about the tables, they didn't add anything). Best wishes. Graham.[reply]
  • (Belated) Support. As the person that passed this article as a GA (see talk page) a little while ago, and having seen it get even better since I passed it, I definitely think this article is of FA quality. Kakofonous (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments, a good start and well-written, but some issues need to be addressed:
    • When I finished the lead, I felt the question of "who" was not covered. Who invented and/or popularized this diet? Worth mentioning in the lead.
    • I've now made it through Theory and History, and still no "who" except the opinions of some professors. Am I to presume those are the inventors? The History section has passive voice sentences that obscure the subject when the subject is definitely of interest. "One of the first suggestions ... was made in a book published in 1975." Made by whom? "In 1985, a key paper on Paleolithic nutrition was published..." Written by whom? "This was followed by a book..." See where this is going? Yes the reader can follow the footnotes... but they don't unless they are verifying something. Even then, they don't know if the source cited is primary or secondary.
    • The organization of the "Medical research" heading seems a bit odd to me. In that heading, I was also looking for the research that refutes the diet. I know there is plenty of it later on, but surely some of it is medical research? Consider grouping "for and against" items together.
      • I rearranged the sections to make it clear that the "medical research" section discuses the research in the context of the theory, i.e. from the point of view of the proponents of the diet, how the research is believed to support the theory. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed the section heading to "Interpretation of medical research" and edited the text accordingly. --Phenylalanine (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reasons why I think the medical research section should be separate from the criticism are the following:
      • "The appropriate way to structure criticism may depend on the style of the article. In articles on people, places, things, etc., it can be very useful to integrate criticism into the article. In articles whose subjects are themselves points of view, such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, etc.), political outlooks Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, etc.), religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, etc.), intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with criticism of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook." Wikipedia:Criticism
      • "Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created." Wikipedia:Criticism --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with other modern dietary trends like Atkins, etc, I would expect a heading on how this diet is being propagated in popular culture. Are people writing books named, Lose 50 Pounds Fast with Paleolithic Diet!!! and such? Infomercials? I'm not impugning the diet or comparing it to Atkins, but there have got to be people out there trying to make a buck on this.
      • It appears that there are a number of diet books with a similar "evolutionary" theme (see [2] and [3]), but most are not strictly "paleo" (based on amazon reviews). The authors mentioned in the article are the ones that seem to be the most notable advocates of "Paleolithic diets" based on the press coverage of the diet (ses "further reading" section). I haven't read the other diet books and I hesitate to mention them without some media coverage. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved the links from the "see also" section to the "History" section, as they deal with the history of the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lists of foods, you don't put commas at the end of list items. Ditto for the periods on the last items.
    • There are hyphens throughout the article where there should be en dashes, and at least one en dash that should be an em dash. Check WP:DASH.
      • I looked through and corrected the en -> em dash problem, but could not find hyphen problems. All of the hyphen-uses (ahem) I could find were used to combine words. The common hyphen problem (namely using hyphens for page ranges) didn't seem to be present. Could you elaborate on what you found? Kakofonous (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say it, but you have a dish pictured at the top of the article that typically uses bread or bread crumbs in its sauce, which I think is contrary to the diet you are writing about.
    • The food pyramid diagram is not very usable. As it appears in the article, the captions are illegible. Even at full size, it is hard to read. I think readers should not have to click the image to read the captions - they should be clear in the article.
    • I'm just not sure about the images of the cookfire and the hunter-gatherer guy. They seem gratuitous. --Laser brain (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paleolithic-style_diet&oldid=193696485"