Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Squab (food)/1

Squab (food)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Initially an individual reassessment at Talk:Squab (food)/GA1.

Result: Delist. This ended up being primarily a criterion 1 issue. The article does not flow well. See reviewers comments below. Geometry guy 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that the article fails criteria 3a and 4, due to the lack of length and sources, and the inclusion of weasel words. –blurpeace ^(talk) 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It relies on fairly minor sources to assert 'facts' which are vague, and not truly encycloapedic without supporting sources. "roughly a month old", "throughout much of recorded history","not usually a staple", "may be considered peculiar","pigeon in general, have been consumed in many civilizations" - it is all very vague. Also, it is rather short, and I feel that it lacks broad coverage. Chzz ► 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covers the subject of squab meat well - includes that the meat is mainly found in the breast, that the meat is dark and lean, the texture and flavour, what it has been traditionally served with, and outlines the consumption of squab from the time of the Roman Empire to the present. What other major topics are missing? All the phrases pointed out by Chzz are cited to the book "Pigeons: The Fascinating Saga of the World's Most Revered and Reviled Bird". --Malkinann (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article uses all of the best available sources, as you can see from this exchange where someone tried to look for better sources and failed. Also, length is not really a GA issue. It's breadth of coverage that matters: GA was specifically created for shorter articles that couldn't meet FA standards. As for the first vote, I suggest you take a look at the improvements done since then. This is a relatively obscure subject, and this is a great article on it considering that fact. Steven Walling (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The prose is substandard. Look no further than the lead for examples:

In culinary terminology, squab (prob. of Scand. descent; skvabb, meaning "loose, fat flesh") is the meat from a young domestic pigeon; formerly adult birds from several species were called by the same name. Squab for the table are roughly a month old; they have reached adult size but have not yet flown. Consumed throughout much of recorded history, squab is not usually a staple food where it is a part of modern cuisine, and it may be considered peculiar or exotic.

Several of the sentences are poorly composed. For example:

The abbreviation "prob." shouldn't be used
The phrase "formerly adult birds from several species" is odd and difficult to interpret.
" Squab for the table" - as opposed to squab for something else?
"[S]quab is not usually a staple food where it is a part of modern cuisine" is yet another strangely composed phrase. The reader is left to wonder what exactly "where it is a part of modern cuisine" means.

Unless this article is rewritten it should be delisted. Majoreditor (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the article has improved considerably in the last few hours. Great work! Majoreditor (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Are there any other issues with the article? --Malkinann (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Several major issues. Prose is not clear. Sentences are short and choppy. It feels as though information has been cut and pasted into the article with little regard for overall flow and legibility. We have dove and pigeon appearing at one point with capital letters. We have "age" and "old" in the same sentence. We have squab as singular and plural - it appears as though the intention is to use singular for the meat and plural for the animal - but this is not clear. And if the term squab for the animal is a former use, why is that use being revived for the article? The lead section doesn't summarise the article. The division of content into the two sections is not clear - there is history discussed in "In cuisine" (and that is an unclear section title), and husbandry discussed in the "History" section. I haven't checked references, though I have noted several statements unsourced. I am unsure of broad coverage, as I think the article needs first to be better organised and written to assist the reader to understand the topic. I feel there is a considerable amount of work needed on this article, such that it is unlikely to be brought to standard within the time allowed to discuss it during a reassessment. Currently it is a collection of facts poorly presented. It is C class: "fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow". The B class criteria missing are - 1: "suitably referenced"; 3: "The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind"; and 4: "The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly" SilkTork *^YES! 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The history being discussed in the "In cuisine" section is the history of how squab has been served as a foodstuff, which is why it is in the 'cuisine' section and not the 'history' section. The modern husbandry of the animal is part of the history of keeping them, as the modern industrial equivalent to the medieval dovecote. Why do you feel it is unsuitably referenced? Which challengeable statements do you feel are unsourced? --Malkinann (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WikiProject criteria are not, nor have ever been, GA requirements. Any reasons to list or delist should be based purely on the GA criteria, not on extrapolations of criteria provided by WP:1.0 and other WikiProjects. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are keen to keep some form of separation of GA from the overall class ratings; however, there is a relationship. An article that is GA becomes GA class on the ranking scale; as such, at times it can be helpful to look at where an article is on that scale to indicate how close (or far) the article is from being GA class - or just simply to indicate to editors what work needs to be done to generally improve an article. My point is that this particular article is not GA class according to GA criteria, and further, that it needs some work to lift it up from C class, where it more appropriately should be placed for the reasons given above. The aim of the class rankings is the same as FA and GA - to improve the quality of articles by both giving guidance as to what can be done to improve, and to reward the effort put into improving an article by giving a ranking. We maintain the quality of that incentive by maintaining the quality of the whole ranking system from stub up to FA - including GA. SilkTork *^YES! 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why the article is organised the way it is, and now I must ask again - Why do you feel it is unsuitably referenced? Which challengeable statements do you feel are unsourced? It's difficult for me to try to address your concerns within the timeframe of the reassessment if you don't explain them adequately. --Malkinann (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, with regret. The prose shows signs of improvement but is still riddled with problems. Another example:

The modern preference for young pigeon likely began because it is much easier to collect birds that have not yet flown from the nest, and the meat is more tender as it has not been exercised by flight.

Phrases such as "the meat is more tender as it has not been exercised by flight" read as if malformed by translation software. While the article is off to a good start it needs more wordsmithing than we can attempt here at GAR. I suggest de-listing the article, allow editors time to improve the prose and then re-nominate it at GAN. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person's "reading as if malformed by translation software" is another's favourite phrasing. I've altered it, and had (another) readthrough User:Tony1's copyediting guide. Is there anything else? --Malkinann (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's more (such as the odd choice of the word especially in the sentence Ten pairs of pigeons can produce eight squabs each month without being fed especially by the pigeon keepers.) GAR is a forum for assessing articles rather than improving them. It will be best to de-list the article and allow editors the time to recraft the prose. Perhaps Peer Review or the League of Copyeditors can help? The article is progressing nicely; it's informative and interesting, and with additional efforts it will eventually meet GA standards for readability. Majoreditor (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through prior to closing this reassessment, and agree that the prose needs work for grammar and flow. It is still unclear when or whether "squab" refers to the bird, the meat, or both, when it is singular or plural, and what the distinction is between "squab" and "squab meat". There are spurious quotation marks and sentences which don't hold together, such as "The use of squabs probably stems from the relative ease of catching birds which have not yet fledged,[3] or that unfledged birds have more tender meat". There is also repetition, for instance of the fact that squab meat is tender. Geometry guy 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]