Talk:Applied Food Technologies

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am not happy with this article and to my opinion it should be rewritten and maybe split into serveral articles. I do not know if the company Applied Food Technologies is notable. Food risks due to mislabeling is in my humble opinion certainly notable as separate article. The same for Antimicrobials in Aquaculture. Off course, all three article has to be rewritten to let them match the Wikipedia quality standards, but it would be a waste to remove this article. But the present form is just not goed enough and confusing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Big Wind. While I respect your opinion, I respectfully disagree with some points. First, Applied Food Technologies is notable in the United States within the Seafood Industry. The company is the only company that meets the FDA's recommendations for seafood species identification, which is the principle means of meeting the standards for a law that has been in place for decades. For this reason, the company is used by hundreds of companies in the industry to do their testing for them. I was fortunate enough to talk with the company, some of their customers, and some government officials before writing my Wiki article and I can assure you that within their industry they are notable, but I believe they are nationally notable as well (like I state in the article, they have been interviewed on national news broadcasts, national publications, and are the market share leader in their industry. Admittedly, their website is not the best, so I've had to look at these articles for most of the information on them that is in the article.

Second, you are certainly right that the separate sections could probably be their own wiki articles. When I set out to write about the company, I realized there was no information on these very important topics in Wikipedia and set out to investigate. However, what I found is that the popular press does not mention companies can and do perform the types of testing mentioned in their reports, so including all the topics within a Wiki on the market leader in the US for this type of testing made sense. Furthermore, because this company essentially created the commercial industry for seafood species identification, making them notable, information about their industry makes sense in the same article as information about the company.

As far as the article not being good enough or confusing, I can't speak to that as I am a recent graduate and this is my first article. However, the people I have shared the article with like the article and believe it is very informative. I added at least one criticism of the company today -before your opinion- that I found when the company appeared in a "news alert" I have set up about the company and am trying to be very informative and keep all the sections up to date while I am working on my second Wikipedia article. Thank you for your review and your feedback. Also, thank you for your agreement that it would be a waste to remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoathouseBob (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the nice part of Wikipedia: different opinions and different views. If you don't like my suggestion (yet), so be it. I accept your arguments and will not interfere with your work. Happy editing! Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have chopped out large chunks of background content not directly about the company itself as it does not belong in this article. If it belongs anywhere it should be in a separate article about mislabeling. I will keep the text in a user subpage if anyone wants access to it (User:Ukexpat/Seafood mislabelling). – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UKexpat, While I understand your decision to arbitrarily and on your own volition to remove the only content in Wikipedia about almost every subject in your "chopped out large chunks", these were included in the article because they are necessary to understand why this company was formed, why the testing this company was first to start in the US is important, and, most importantly, why this company is relevant. The article could have been written with each of these topics explained from the company's point of view, but (a) I don't know the company's point of view because I only interviewed them twice and (b)that would introduce bias. Removing the information about many of the diseases and issues associated with seafood mislabeling from Wikipedia completely deprives the world of access to this information in the unbiased, encyclopaedic format from which it was presented unless you write an article using the content elsewhere. This information could easily be put elsewhere on Wikipedia as well, but the information is needed in this piece to understand the importance of this company. I appreciate your desire to cut out details that don't directly relate to the company's history, but removing all of the information without making any effort to place the content elsewhere on Wikipedia directly contradicts Wikipedia's mission to share important information for everyone's benefit. You may disagree that this content explaining why the company is important should be included, but a dozen other editors did not see the need to just press "delete" and remove the information from the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoathouseBob (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your reversion - this material belongs in a separate article. It is available at User:Ukexpat/Seafood mislabelling for anyone who wants access to it to create such an article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is some dispute. I read the new post made by Ukexpat and the post he erased. He didn't bother to curate the "new" article he created in any way, including not making the article make any sense. I agree that the article on Applied Food Technologies contains more than just the facts about the company, but I also see Boathouse's point that the description of the company needs some of this information to understand what it is that the company does because the company is important, for the most part, because it started this type of testing and is the company that is the market leader according to one of the articles about them cited in their work. Ukexpat appears to be a very prolific editor doing a lot of needed work daily and I am sure means well. But the article on seafood mislabeling doesn't make any sense alone. I think Boathouse should work with Ukexpat to write the off-topic parts out of this article and to make the other article readable. My thoughts. -JournalismDreamer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JournalismDreamer1991 (talk • contribs)

I never said I attempted to "curate" the draft - I just cut the text word for word and pasted it into a subpage. The fact that it isn't readable just reinforces my view that it shouldn't have been there in the first place. If it helps, I will move it from a user page to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by User:GaGirlr90

I have reverted these edits twice. Detailed stuff about the history of seafood mislabeling does not belong in this aritcle. There is a separate article on that subject at Seafood mislabelling.--ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Applied Food Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]