Talk:Obesity in Germany

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Working...

I don't believe that the article is ready to be a Good Article yet. My comments are below:

General comments: needs more "meat". It comes across as a list of bullets without any description. There may be more ways to expand on the subject, but this isn't my area of expertise, so I analyzed what was on hand and only spent a little time on trying to think of other ways that it could be expanded to be broad in its coverage (criterion 3) while beginning to address the comprehensiveness required of a featured article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

a (prose): FAIL b (MoS):

As noted, the article is generally just a collection of bullets—in particular the "domestic statistics" section. It should consist of prose that links the information together and tells a story. Remember, its an encyclopedia article, not just a collection of information. The latter might be ok for a starter article, but not a GA (at least in my opinion). See some examples of featured articles for this type of prose and the way they tell a story—such as the Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. The quality required of an FA is greater than a GA, but reasonably well-written prose is still a requirement for a GA.

The "Blame" section is a good example of a bullet that needs to be expanded into a paragraph or more.

The lede should be a summary of the article. It covers a few items, but does not adequately summarize all of the sections listed in the article. See WP:lede.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

a (references):PASS b (citations to reliable sources): (shaky) c (OR): PASS

Check your sources. Some of the news articles have authors. Lauren Streib is the author for the Forbes "World's Fattest Countries" article, for example. Is David W. Freeman a reliable source on the CBS News Blog site? If so, he should be listed as the author. If not, the reference should be removed.

I'm also concerned that all of the sources are online. Most seem to meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, but it should be possible to find some studies done on this topic (and your similar article on France). There may even be some studies mentioned in the listed sources. Try Google Scholar, although there are probably many ways to get studies. Some of the best and most relevant are probably in German, but if you are from Austria, that should not be a problem. You can list a German source on an English Wikipedia page. Just translate the title and list the language or use the "language" cell in the cite template. Or, you can just type it out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): FAIL b (focused):

The standard for comprehensiveness of a GA is less than an FA. However, some of the sections—notably the one on causes—needs expansion.

It's reasonable to compare Germany with other European countries. But you'll want to consider WP:WORLDVIEW also. Consider combining the "other European countries" and "Germany's International Ranking" section into one section that adhere's to WP:WORLDVIEW. Domestic considerations seems out of place in between.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias: PASS

5. It is stable.

No edit wars etc.: PASS

6. Is it illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate?

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Technically PASS, but…

Images are not strictly required, but are nice. It should be possible to find some images. Try checking some of the links in Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: FAIL.

I encourage you to continue improving this article. It would be worthwhile to seek a peer review also, as other editors will undoubtedly have more ways to improve the article beyond what I can offer. I look forward to seeing this as a Good Article in the future. And thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GA? Really? This article is bad.

A single study (by whom?) shows something. Why can't you find the actual study and check what's in it? This is an encyclopedia, not a school project. Citing news sources who cite studies without checking the actual study first is bad (news sources are very unreliable for citing studies; go find the actual study!). This article is not about a "news event", it's about social statistics - your sources don't fit into your article.

Now, the article is named "obesity", yet the study (according to the news articles) apparently only talks about overweight people. And so does most of the article. The lead starts with "Obesity in Germany has been increasingly [citation needed!!!] cited as a major health issue [...]. A 2007 study shows Germany has the highest number of overweight people in Europe. Obese and overweight are two different classes. Yet, from this point on in the lead, the article talks as if they're the same. They're not, obesity rates of 14-20% (the article even breaks it down as 14% of women and 16% of men) are not the same as the USA (as the article claims, based on news sources); which has obesity rates of >26%. The article further claims that obesity in the United Kingdom is actually higher. Contradiction both in facts and in words. Unenclopedic. Stereotypes (beer and fat food) don't make a good start of an article, either. The real issues are more likely sugar and fat, as in every other country. Yes, I know, some news sources state that, but when you want to get obese by drinking beer you will also turn into an alcoholic. More context and less tabloid, please. The rest of the article is even worse. "State-by-State" only talks about one state, the Forbes Ranking is just added without any context. --84.130.251.177 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Why can't you find the actual study and check what's in it?"
  • Not everybody can find studies without using news articles. If this is not the case, please show me.
• "Citing news sources who cite studies without checking the actual study first is bad (news sources are very unreliable for citing studies; go find the actual study!)".
  • How do you know that news sources don't check the studies?
• "Stereotypes (beer and fat food) don't make a good start of an article, either. The real issues are more likely sugar and fat, as in every other country. Yes, I know, some news sources state that, but when you want to get obese by drinking beer you will also turn into an alcoholic. More context and less tabloid, please."
  • "but when you want to get obese by drinking beer you will also turn into an alcoholic." Yes. However, this article is not about "alcoholism in Germany".
  • "The real issues are more likely sugar and fat." Sugar can be found in a lot of food. So, just saying sugar and fat isn't good enough.
  • Saying beer is a stereotype is wrong. It is actually sourced in the article. Therefore it's fact.
• "State-by-State" only talks about one state".
  • If you can find statistics and add reliable sources on any of the 15 other states, please add.
• "Forbes Ranking is just added without any context".
  • I don't think that's true. It's shows Germany compared to other countries with similar rates.
• "GA? Really? This article is bad"
  • As you may have seen, this article doesn't have Good Article standing. If you really think this article is so bad, then there is nothing stopping you from constructively adding to this article. Kingjeff (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

overweight vs obesity

article seams to serveral times mixes up overweight and obesity178.210.114.106 (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

for example the article name is Obesity in Germany, yet most of the time it talks about overweight (eg statistics, figures given)178.210.114.106 (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This page needs a revamp. It's a complete mess and statistically worthless. First, it takes overweight into account when it is clearly supposed to be just obesity. Secondly, random facts are merged into the actual statistics, such as "Only 14% live a healthy life". That has nothing to do with obesity. 2003:6B:951:D01:AD4F:FDDE:FC63:4364 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction need to be sorted out!

Contributors to this article (as of 2016-10) need to sort out an apparent internal contradictions:

Intro section: "Germany had a lower incidence of overweight and obese adults as a percentage of the total population at 54.8% in comparison with France at 60.7%" Ok, got it Germany less obese than France albeit by a small margin.

Later in the history section: "In Germany, 60% of men and 43% of women are considered overweight while in France, 38.5% of men and 26% of women are considered overweight." Ah, what? Now, only a few sentences down from the intro the opposite is stated: Germany is now on average more overweight than France. If the studies contradict each other it should either be discussed why the differ or the worse of the studies should be removed.

--— J.S.^talk 09:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What does this even mean?

"Obesity in seniors shows that it makes seniors less intelligent."

This sentence makes no sense at all and should be corrected or deleted. 2003:C0:725:B100:155A:50D6:D4E5:6AFC (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)