Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milk/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Milk

Self Nomination

Reasons for Nominating this article:

  • A well written article with a concise lead section
  • Neutral
  • Pictures are fine
  • Factually accurate
  • I added some sections to it

This will also be an opportunity to improve and expand this article. Criticisms sometimes help. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object:
  1. The article needs to be prosified. Large parts of the article consists of lists. (See Butter)
  2. The article delves on the patterns of "developed" nations. What about practices in the underdeveloped nations
  3. =History=? When did man begin to drink (non-human) milk?
  4. The article starts off with cow's milk as the second section and other animals' as the eighth. Why not discuss milk producing animals right at the beginning?
  5. Milk adulteration? Common in countries such as India
  6. Inline references not formatted correctly
  7. Copyediting needed> eg. Male calves are a "useless byproduct" ... followed by veal crates Long and winding sentence.
  8. Milk is considered to be vegetarian or not? Touch on the debate
  9. Uses of milk? edibles+cosmetics etc
  10. Is it natural for humans to consume milk long after the infant stage? No other animal drinks milk after the nursing stage.
  11. Some graphs would be a welcome addition

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've expanded the article by adding the "History of Milk" section and "Milk and vegetarianism" Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
History is very short, and again documents only the "First World" countries. 2. Cows are ... consumed by most Hindus. This is misleading. There are many staunch vegetarian Hindus who consume milk. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Too many lists
    • Sources are all inline web-links and it takes a lot of work to tell if they are good references or not. Suggest using cite.php footnotes; if not, at least needs a references section detailing all the sources linked to.
    • Stucture is strange. A top-level section "Expansion of Milk on heating"???
    • The lack of a History section, pointed out by Nichalp, says a lot about non-comprehensiveness.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have added a History section Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as incomprehensive. Has a lot of lists and referencing is also improper. History should be overall and not just for cow's milk. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Only 3 refs. Refrencing is improper. Many stub sections. History section under cows milk could be a whole article. Not just a paragraph. Too many lists. Advargae prose. Tobyk777 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's a good start - keep working on it. - HarpooneerX 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - referencing is not done properly. Otherwise, it's promising. Ronline ✉ 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)