Chicken soup

I love how this article evolved, and what it has become. From a mere recipe which was once nominated for deletion, it has become about as informative and entertaining as an article about a particular food can be. The article currently gives the history and cultural background of Chicken soup, and refers to scientific experiments conducted with Chicken soup. There's a nice picture, and of course a recipe. While I contributed to this article at one point, I was not the originator of the article, and it has since evolved far beyond my contribution. --Woggly 18:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The FAC template should go on the talk page. 1) There is no lead. 2) Content is scant and seems to document mostly Jewish customs. 3) Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Please see: Wikipedia:What is a featured article =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read Wikipedia:What is a featured article before nominating this article. Nowhere does it say that articles cannot be about food, nor does it say that articles must be long - only of "appropriate length" to their subject material, and comprehensive. The article documents mostly Jewish customs because Chicken soup doesn't play that great a role in other cultures. There isn't that much more that can be written about chicken soup without getting silly - however, what has been written is well written and appropriate. This article is much more than a mere recipe. How would you elaborate the lead? FAC template has been moved. --Woggly 19:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct in that it does not state that articles have to be long, but they can't be this short, either. This ties into an articles' comprehensiveness. The less possible information there is available on a particular topic, the harder it is to have the article featured. Phoenix2 23:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a story on Gandhi having chicken soup even though he was a vegetarian, maybe you could add that. 2) I was referring to the recipe. This should be referred to peer review for more ideas. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd appreciate if you could help me find a reference for this anecdote, which I will gladly add to the article. --Woggly 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Refer to peer review. The recipe should be moved to the WikiBooks Cookbook and linked to like all recipes. A recipe is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, the article is short, and while I can't think of anything to add at the moment, I'm pretty sure it needs to be expanded in order for it to be comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify that I'm not arguing for the sake of being antagonistic, but because I really do find this an interesting discussion. Who said that comprehensive is necessarily long? Sometimes a short article is enough to sum up a topic. Can a short article never be a featured article? As for the recipe, my personal feeling is that an article about Chicken soup would not be complete without a recipe (and I'm pretty sure I read a recipe for ibex in the encyclopedia Britannica, I remember being shocked by it). I know consensus is that recipes should be transwikied to Wikibooks, when they are the sole content of the article. But when the article has significant enough substance to merit being an article without the recipe, why not *also* include a recipe? Sure, wikipedia is not a recipe book, and I don't like articles that are nothing but recipes either. But isn't a general sort of a recipe crucial information when writing about a food? --Woggly 22:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Let's try that comment again. When I tried to reply earlier today, I lost my net access.) That's why one should link to the Wikibooks Cookbook. Not having the recipe itself in the article is a direct result of Wikipedia is not a recipe book and Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. For example, the article on the Decleration of Independence wouldn't be complete with the complete text of this document. But this text is not appropriate Wikipedia material and the document text should be linked to on Wikisource. Short articles CAN be featured, but only if they are complete. Why not take a featured article on some form of food and see what's in that? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Chicken Soup would be a fantastic featured article. I'll say more later as this discussion evolves. Kind regards Joaquin Murietta 22:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—Right at the top, can you avoid the implication that the United States is the 'default' nation. Surely chicken soup is used abroad as a remedy ... Tony 05:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I've already erased that at least once, someone else must think it's important (look at the first comment on the talk page). --Woggly 06:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The recipe needs to go. There is no authoritative recipe for chicken soup: the only ingredients that all chicken soups have in common are chicken and water. --Carnildo 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. In addition to the recipe having to go (recipes are inheritly POV, in my opinion), I can think of a number of other topics this article fails to address:
  • (Somewhat mentioned before) Chicken soup in other cultures. I think Greece has a chicken soup with lemon and egg, for instance. I'm sure it's nearly universal, in fact, so the bias toward the Jewish tradition is quite severe here.
  • A discussion of the difference between chicken broth and chicken soup.
  • Non-homemade chicken soup, including canned products, powdered dry products, or bullion.
  • Chicken noodle soup should be dealt with as more than just a see-also link; perhaps it should even be merged into this article.
  • I'd like to see some information about the science of chicken soup. What's really in a broth? Why are some clear and some cloudy? That sort of thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that last point you haven't erased yet: not quite sure how to put in in the article. Under "preparation" there is a description of how the soup is clarified. What makes soup cloudy, basically, is sediment: miniscule bits of mostly chicken tissue floating around. Clear soup has simply been strained and filtered. Not that fascinating. --Woggly 08:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - it's too short. Funny topic, but needs something more to be featured. So far it's just a good ordinary Wikipedia article. I think Bunchofgrapes had some great ideas how to expand it. Renata3 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - non NPOV. Strong Jewish bias. Type "bouillon de poule" on google to see how important "chicken soup" is in the French cuisine. Vb 09:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now amended the article, addressing most of the comments and objections above. I've also listed this article on Peer Review, but I'd appreciate it if those of you who already voted could take another look at the article before booting it out of here. Thanks. --Woggly 14:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It has improved a lot, now taking on most if not all the areas it needs to for "comprehensiveness." At this point, it's a little choppy (my own FAC, Cheese, has had a bit of trouble with overly-short subsections... apparently one-paragraph subsections are considered bad) and perhaps could use some section reordering (I don't really "get" the logic of the flow as it is now). It also lacks references for any of the newer material.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added links to two sources. Feel free to reorder the sections in a more logical way, I'm too "involved" at this point to see a clearer way to organise them. --Woggly 15:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Refer to Peer Review - It's a decent article, but not featured quality yet. Needs more information, which might require a certain amount of research. It's hard to say exactly how an article isn't comprehensive, because the article lacks the information nessessary, but generally shortness is a good indicator. Layout could use some work. The various sections on the soup around the world are really really short, and either need beefing up or restructuring. Fieari 01:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Much improvement with respect to NPOV. However, the title "Around the world" hears more like outside of the US and Israel. Why isn't there any section in the US? "Booyah" is not known to me and I am a Walloon! It may be known in the US but not around Liège. Though walloons like to eat Chicken Soups they don't have any special tradition. Cite your sources. On the other hand the article is missing the chicken "waterzooi" which is a typical Flemish food (more precisely from Ghent) and a very original way to use chicken for a kind of soup. Vb 09:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]