Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breastfeeding
Self-nomination. Perhaps the science picture needs a higher resolution still but I think the content is quite detailed now. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support
Object. Needs to be internationalised a bit - at present all the references and country specific info is US. Otherwise a good article. Would support if my concern is dealt with.Jongarrettuk 23:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Added some UK references from a survey reported by the department of health. Goes someway to dealing with your concern, I hope. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with ALoan's first point. Perhaps you should request some assistance Asian/African/South American wikipedians to fill in the gap. Good luck.Jongarrettuk 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)- None of them popped up when I placed it on peer review - any good ideas of how to attract them to it? violet/riga (t) 09:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You could find wikipedians in other countries on [1], explain what your doing on their talk pages and see whether some are willing to help. Don't know if it would work though Jongarrettuk 19:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Article is now sufficiently internationalised for me. A good, comprehensive bit of work. Have changed to support. Jongarrettuk 23:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You could find wikipedians in other countries on [1], explain what your doing on their talk pages and see whether some are willing to help. Don't know if it would work though Jongarrettuk 19:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- None of them popped up when I placed it on peer review - any good ideas of how to attract them to it? violet/riga (t) 09:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Added some UK references from a survey reported by the department of health. Goes someway to dealing with your concern, I hope. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - all my points are addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Object - this is generally an excellent article, and I want to support it, but some notable absences: (1) it is is too US- (and now UK-) centric - there must be something to say about breastfeeding in other cultures (in, say, Asia, Africa, South America); (2) nothing about breastfeeding in history - there must be something to say about historical approaches and attitudes to breastfeeding; (3) properties of breast milk could compare breast milk to formula milk and cow, goat, etc, milk, or be separated out to breast milk, which looks almost identical; (4) a short line about parallel (tandem) feeding of twins but nothing about higher-order multiples, nor about parallel feeding positions; (5) nothing about mixed feeding (supplementing breastfeeding with formula bottle feeding); (6) nothing about the approximate number of times a day that an infant feeds or approximate amounts taken at each feed (as a function of age) - I know this varies, but there must be averages; (7) nothing about nursing bras; (8) apart from avoiding certain foods (caffeine, alcohol) nothing about a nursing mother's increased dietary requirements; (9) no references. I'm sorry to be so critical. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Don't be sorry at all - you've highlighted some important things here which I will work on. There are some that I will find difficult (historical and other cultures, in particular) but I'll work on it as much as I can. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Excellent additions - I've deleted some objections, but a few comments: (1) the table is great (I don't want to believe some of the percentages) but there is still little on cultural approaches to breastfeeding outside the US and UK (even Western Europe - say, France or Germany - would be a start); (3) my point on other sorts of milk now belongs in breast milk, I think; (4) still nothing on tandem feeding positions (e.g.[2] or [3]); (9) I guess some of the external links could be turned into references. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Again, thankyou. I've still got some more things to put into it and will be expanding upon it soon. For the references section I'll properly cite the midwifery journals and texts I've used. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't be sorry at all - you've highlighted some important things here which I will work on. There are some that I will find difficult (historical and other cultures, in particular) but I'll work on it as much as I can. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mild objectionscomments:1) Should say something about difficulties being caused by external factors rather than the mother. 1a) E.g. if the mother and baby don't have early contact the baby doesn't find it so early to feed.1b) Some hospitals feed babies infant formula when the mother isn't present leading to the baby not being hungry when the mother is present. 1c) Some milk companies have provided milk to mothers for free which means that by the time they realise they have to pay the cannot feed [4].2) Should provide some history on advice given to mothers about breast feeding in developing countries. 3) "it is not uncommon for them to resist feeding from the breast" should probably be qualified ("if not started immediately" and or quantified (20%, 5% or whatever) Mozzerati- Thanks for that. I think 1) is covered as much as is possible and appropriate in the breastfeeding article but some of the things you mention there would better fit into infant formula, Nestle (and the Nestlé boycott article soon to be merged into it) or International Baby Food Action Network. 2) may be difficult to find that information but I can take a look. 3) I think it's been qualified a lot better now, if you could take a look. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still not totally happy with the use of "not uncommon"; I feel that it is to broad a category. I'm not able to state my complaint clearly, though. I would prefer "in 10% of cases" or, if we don't have such detail, one of "occasionally", "sometimes", or "often". Mozzerati
- Slightly reworded. I'm not aware of any figures but will keep looking for some. Hope it's better now. violet/riga (t) 14:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still not totally happy with the use of "not uncommon"; I feel that it is to broad a category. I'm not able to state my complaint clearly, though. I would prefer "in 10% of cases" or, if we don't have such detail, one of "occasionally", "sometimes", or "often". Mozzerati
- More information added in the History of breastfeeding section regarding malnutrition and traditional beliefs. violet/riga (t) 16:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I think 1) is covered as much as is possible and appropriate in the breastfeeding article but some of the things you mention there would better fit into infant formula, Nestle (and the Nestlé boycott article soon to be merged into it) or International Baby Food Action Network. 2) may be difficult to find that information but I can take a look. 3) I think it's been qualified a lot better now, if you could take a look. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Lots of work done to this article, thanks to ALoan and Jongarrettuk for their suggestions. Would appreciate it if others could check this article and support/object. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 11:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support: terrific article now. Filiocht 14:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- International-minded and covers a lot of bases. Support [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 15:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Mpolo 18:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Support: Outstanding article -- Chris 73 Talk 10:02, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Minor objection - TOC is overwhelming and should be pruned. →Raul654 01:42, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I've been looking at trying to cut it down but haven't be successful yet. Will take another look. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Cut it down a little but I don't know how it could be cut back any more. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strong support. My mother, a nurse midwife, would be proud, Violetriga. User:ClockworkTroll
- Thank you very much. violet/riga (t) 07:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)