Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 05:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a quickfail, but it's also not going to be a normal review from me, at least to start. You will need to put in some work. It's concerning to me that the mix of sources on this topic is pretty much all news material, both national and local. A cursory search in WP:TWL and Google Scholar reveals a number of promising academic and medical sources. Hawkeye7 left a list of possible larger structural factors worth discussing at Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage#Issues that could be covered in this article. Incorporating this material would broaden the article beyond a rehash of current affairs material from last year. This article was sent to GA in January, about 200 days from the end of the material covered in the article, and it has sat at GAN for about 200 days as well. The record needs to be refreshed in more ways than one.

In addition to improving the source quality and prose, new material will need to be added so as to address the main aspects of the topic (3a). The new material would ideally cover:

Background on breastfeeding in the US and the infant formula market.
Academic and medical sources concerning topics already mentioned in the article.
Any additional relevant material generated in the nearly seven months since GAN including academic/medical reviews of the consequences of this shortage.

You should also look at it with fresh eyes. You have not edited this page in more than a year, and you may find new and different issues or see that something has been overemphasized with the passage of time. I see that Swpb is on a wikibreak, but as a substantial contributor, they may want to be aware of this review starting as well.

Other high-level copy issues:

Some sections read as proseline, which made more sense when this was a current event issue. That can probably be softened a bit. Consider combining paragraphs and reconfiguring them to be less a timeline of events in some places.
The article lead may not be long enough for the prose content. Some lead material may also be worth duplicating in the prose; there are a lot of unique citations in the lead section.
The paragraph A report by Politico on June 9... has close paraphrasing issues to the source with some passages lifted more clearly. Earwig highlights such shared passages as had been monitoring general supply chain concerns regarding formula.

My current plan is to hold back on the most intensive parts of the review—copyediting and spot checks—until this has been done satisfactorily. This page could pass, and there are solid pieces in place. But it just as easily could fail.

@SunDawn and Swpb: Wanted to make sure this was seen. I'd like to see some activity around improving these specific issues before I start copyediting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sammi! Thank you for reply. I apologize for my slowness, the review caught me at an unfortunate time where I am extensively traveling for work these days. It's highly probable that I won't be able to effectively edit until the end of this month. I will try to work on the high-level copy issues as mentioned. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sammi Brie@Swpb first of all thank you for doing the review for this article. I have just finished most of my work and now able to contribute more but I didn't think I have the energy and the motivation to fix much of the article. I might be hundreds of days ago when I nominated, but I didn't have the energy and the motivation today. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give Swpb a chance to take over this process. If not, this page will be failed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the bandwidth to work this in a reasonable timeframe, so a fail it is. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 16:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heard, @Swpb. If you or SunDawn ever want to work on this outside of the GAN process, I'd highly encourage it. You have a roadmap to get there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sammi. Since SunDawn nominated, I'm inclined to let them take the lead, but I'll contribute some improvements per your initial review when I can. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

There are four images. Two are CC-licensed from Flickr. Two others are PD-USGov. All are appropriate, and some have alt text.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.