Talk:Meat

Meat has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 10, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 31 days

Animal rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Veganism and Vegetarianism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge meat industry[edit]

Meat industry is a poor article that should be merged to this article as it contains little information that isn't already found on this one. There is currently a discussion about this on the talk-page of meat industry [1]. I am suggesting that we merge that article into this one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I'd probably oppose this, an immediate reason being that Meat is currently nominated for GAN and is just awaiting a reviewer; the last thing I want to do in the middle of that is to carry out a merge.

Aside from that, Meat industry is certainly a notable topic in its own right: indeed, a sensitive and controversial one, with strongly held opinions on both sides. There is obviously scope for improvement in the text, but there is no shortage of sources or of significant things to say. Its 'History' chapter should describe how the industry transitioned from the village butcher to a factory-style mechanised process. Its 'Industry' chapter should describe the size of the business around the world, trade (imports and exports), and destinations (supermarkets, butchers, catering, industrial processing, petfood). Its 'Ethics' chapter should describe the arguments for (tradition, nutrition) and against (cruelty, environmental impact) its existence. These aren't necessarily the same as the arguments for meat as such; a case can be made that small-scale production, slaughter, and consumption do not have the same cruelty and environmental impacts, for example. We should be in no hurry to merge, as this is a substantial topic that editors might well enjoy writing, and indeed given the amount of attention to the whole area (cattle, meat, veganism, etc) it is somewhat surprising that it has been so neglected. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Not sure what this fine article is doing as a mere GAN: to my mind it has FAC written all over it. But either at GA or FA level it needs to be in a single variety of English, and at present it is a mish-mash of BrE and AmE: fibres and behaviours -v- fiber and behavior, and so on. At first glance I think AmE spelling predominates, but whether you go nap on that or on BrE (and I don't imagine anyone will quibble about WP:ENGVAR whichever you go for) you really ought to stick with one or the other. Over to you for now. I hardly think we need put the review formally on hold (unless you'd prefer it.) Must go: I feel a bacon butty coming on. Tim riley talk 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim! There seems to be a tradition of AmE in the article, so I've fixed a few fibres and behaviours. Odors, flavors, and colors all seem to be in order. Added an AmE tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you might tidy up carcass-v-carcase, and maybe shove a z into "publicised". Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article would be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: alt text would be good but is not compulsory
Well illustrated

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

A shoo-in for GA. On to FAC I hope. Tim riley talk 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Maybe the toddler needs a helping hand with that particular step! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round objects, dear boy! Tim riley talk 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Protection for Article[edit]

This article does not need protection, as defined by the Wikipedia Semi-Protection Standards. Pierre151 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. The small amount of protection prevents continual large WP:COATRACK and POV edits and reversions on human health and animal cruelty, both topics that are extensively covered on Wikipedia already, and which are briefly and suitably mentioned here. The article consumed substantial admin effort before it was protected. It should stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Chiswick Chap. The article has been the target of people with a non-encyclopaedic agenda and needs protection. Tim riley talk 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions