Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage

Issues that could be covered in this article

  • Why are there only three major producers of baby formula in the United States? (oligopoly)
  • Why is demand so high? (US ranks among the lowest in the developed world for breast feeding) [1]
  • What issues affect this? (disparities in race, income and geography, lack of paid parental leave)
  • Are there more details on the nature of contamination and the recall?
  • Was panic buying a factor in shortages?
  • Why does the US not permit import of baby formula from overseas? Is this a health measure or a protectionist one?
  • What other political and cultural issues are involved? (eg [2])
  • What measure were taken to address the problems listed above?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

misinformation

The facts are that formula is available at the border, while there is. shortage in the US. The facts are that the original COmmack photo showed formula, not Nido milk power, This is acknowledged even by MotherjOnes: "from what I can see, the images don’t exactly show pallets full of just baby formula. One of the images Commack office shared shows a fully stocked shelf with baby formula, sandwiched between shelves of fruit pouches.". That this is "misinformation" by Fox or Republicans is an opinion by Fox's competitor CNN,. I might just as well call it "CNN disinformation: for ignoring the fact that the original COmmack photo showed formula, not Nido powdered milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are the federal government is required to feed migrant children since 1997, and the Commack photos show 1) baby formula on shelves in inventory, not being shipped to the border during the shortage; and 2) pallets of powdered milk, trying to create impression that mass quantities of formula are being shipped to migrants while American babies starve. This is straight up Republican misinformation. soibangla (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is required by law to provide the formula, and that fact is in the article. We don't know when the formula was shipped, so we can't say claims that it was recently shipped are misinformation. Again, the photos from Commack are of formula, not powdered milk, Shall i accuse you of spreading misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photo Hannity pointed to, and the one that followed it, showed boxes and boxes clearly labeled NIDO. As anyone at Fox could have discovered with about a minute’s worth of fact-checking, NIDO is not baby formula; it is powdered milk.[3]

Here are the photos, both of which say NIDO without any indication of formula: [4][5]
Shall i accuse you of spreading misinformation? You go right ahead and do that. soibangla (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here are the original photos, showing Advantage Formula - https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2022/05/FSfa481XIAEJp8l.jpg?resize=680%2C412&crop_strategy=smart&zoom=1, as acknowldged by MotherJones. So yes, by claiming the photos show powdered milk, you are spreading misinformation, by your own standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent. As the article says, Other photos showed shelves stocked with Advantage baby formula, which is purportedly from the border. On shelves, in inventory. As opposed to "pallets and pallets of baby formula" that is actually powdered milk. Kindly refrain of accusing me of spreading misinformation. soibangla (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 'please indent'? If you want to say that CNN accused hannity, specifically, of misidentifying a pallet of powdered milk as 'formula', fine. But the general claim is that there is formula available at the border, with photos that purport to show that. We can't label that as 'misinformation', because it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn to indent. CNN did not "accuse" Hannity of this, he actually did it. the general claim as shown in the first sentence of the section is that Biden is favoring migrants over citizens and sending "pallets and pallets of baby formula" to the border while American babies starve, and it is unmitigated misinformation bullshit. There is a purported photo of formula on shelves at the border because the federal government is required to feed migrant children. soibangla (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Izzy Borden: Your argument fails. Please do not attempt to whitewash brazen Republican misinformation. soibangla (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That "this is unmitigated bullshit', or misinformation, is your opinion, We can't use that. Stop undoing my work for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn to indent so I don't have to clean up after you. Reliable sources thoroughly support my edits. It is pervasive Republican disinformation. It is total bullshit. soibangla (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that sources support you, Right now, based on your edits, the article makes a false claim that Hannity described photos from Commack's office as pallets of formula. Hannity used different photos from the ones distributed by Commack, which actually did show formula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cammack: "Biden is sending pallets of baby formula to the border."[6] "Shelves and pallets packed with baby formula."[7]] Photo of her on Hannity as he showed pallets of NIDO, which I showed above: https://imgur.com/oDK10Cy. So would you prefer the article say she lied? soibangla (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know she lied, or even stated incorrect information. We don't know if pallets of formula are currently shipped or not. The formula is made elsewhere, and somehow arrives at the border. It is likely shipped, and likely shipped on pallets. Perhaps it shipped some time ago, perhaps not. We don't know. The most you can say is that Hannity incorrectly identified one pallet, containing milk powder, as one continuing formula, and used it as a backdrop for Commack's interview. From there to "republicans are conducting a disinformation campaign" is quite a stretch. But thanks for fixing the blatant error you introduced into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If We don't know, then how can she state it as fact? We can't even verify the image she tweeted, which shows no pallets despite her assertion. Of course it got shipped at some time, likely on pallets, but we don't know if it was during the current shortage, but she and others present it as current, and use images of something different, to fabricate yet another fake scandal. And anyone unfamiliar with these deceptive techniques is unaware of how the modern Republican party and its enablers operate. They do this all the time. And no, that's not a partisan POV. Please learn how to indent.soibangla (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the "Republican" section fails IMPARTIAL. The body of that section also doesn't support "misinformation". The title should be changed to something like "political disputes about..." or such. This was clearly a bad edit [8]. Springee (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know, but maybe she does. Or maybe she is just assuming, which may be poor practice, but is not necessarily misinformation. For us to label this as 'misinformation', we'd have to know that it is incorrect, and we don't. I see someone else has noted that your editing is bad - maybe take a step back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we'd have to know that it is incorrect, and we don't In fact, we do. someone else has noted that your editing is bad heh. soibangla (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we actually do not know that, at least not that I have seen. Your flippant dismissal of others' opinions is not a good look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we do. heh.soibangla (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[9] soibangla (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there is evidence that pallets are not being shipped. At a minimum, we'd need a statement from a relevant agency stating they are not currently being shipped. I have seen none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

evidence that pallets are not being shipped is not the correct way of looking at this. Rather, examining the assertions made by Republicans and their media allies is, and reliable sources show they are incorrect. soibangla (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say Republicans are spreading misinformation by claiming pallets are being shipped, then yes, you have to show evidence that they are not. No reliable source that I have seen says they are not being shipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are demanding proof of a negative and ignoring the first sentence of the section and the reliable sources that support it. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am demanding proof for what you claim. If you claim "X did not happen", you need to provide proof for it. The first sentence of the section says "Republicans alleged the Biden administration was prioritizing the needs of migrant children over those of American citizens by providing formula to children at the Southern border. "- that is true, it is an allegation the Republicans are making, which has nothing to do with the question (or rather, ridiculos, irrelevant detail) of pallets being shipped. It is further not a statement of fact, capable of being proven or disproven, but rather a value judgement - that the Biden admin is prioritizing migrants over American citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "X" you mean pallet shipments, nowhere do I assert they didn't happen, yet you demand proof of what I have not asserted. Then you say that is true but later it's not a statement of fact.
maybe take a step back? soibangla (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're having trouble comprehending: It is true that the Republicans are alleging this (Democrats exhibiting wrong priorities), and it is also true that what they are saying not a statement of fact, but opinion. If I said that in my opinion you're not reading very well, it would be a fact that this is my opinion and that I said this, and at the same time, it would not be a statement of fact, but an opinion - my evaluation of your reading comprehension skills. If the pallets is not the issue, what specifically are you claiming is not true about the statements Commack made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I'm looking for consensus on a photo that was removed from the article with no real reason given in the comments section. The photo showed mostly empty shelves and an "I Did That" sticker with President Biden pointing to a spot on the empty area of the shelf. I was surprised because I was looging for formula and kept coming across these stickers at every location. Thoughts?

I am ok with that photo in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the reddit summary removing it, the photo has nothing to do with the causes of the shortage, and neither does Joe Biden. The fact that some people (maybe one person) where you live apparently believe Biden caused this does not make that assertion worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. We have no information on the pervasiveness of that belief. If that changes with good sourcing, the photo might warrant inclusion in the "misinformation" section; until then, no. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 01:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Empty shelves" correctly show the situation. While "Joe Biden sticker" might be incorrect factually, the situation where people are blaming Biden for this is factual. Yes, it could be one person, it could be more, but the fact remains that some people react to the shortage by placing stickers. While the message in the stickers may not be factual, but the "placing of the stickers" and "empty shelves" are factual. Placing the sticker is not "misinformation", it may be not factual but it is not deliberate misinformation. On the other hand, I do agree that such politically charged picture have no benefit of explaining the situation to the reader, and should not be placed as the top picture. SunDawntalk 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a fact that someone put a sticker on a shelf, but it's not a noteworthy fact meriting inclusion in this article, unless there is sourcing saying it's a widespread phenomenon. I could go around my town putting up stickers blaming Madonna for the shortage; it wouldn't make it appropriate to show that here. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following your example, if your picture can convey the crisis perfectly, Madonna or Biden or whoever sticker is there, in my opinion, it is appropriate to place that in the article. The focus should be on whether the picture clarifies to the reader or not. If a notable incident happened and somehow the only photo on this planet has a "Donald Trump did this" sticker, it should be on the article, as the "stickers" are secondary. On the other hand, as I also agreed that the Joe Biden sticker photo should not be in the article, there is no point in continuing this conversation as it is a moot point. Have a great day! SunDawntalk 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the only photo available to illustrate the shortage, sure, but it's not. Pleasure doing business with you, and thanks for your work on the article! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)
Bare formula shelves with purchase limit notice, January 2022
Bare formula shelves with purchase limit notice, January 2022

Created by Swpb (talk). Self-nominated at 15:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Swpb: New enough and long enough. Double QPQ present (!). The article has substantial references, though the Datasembly ref (#12) is kind of borked and bare—it may be worth evaluating its status. The article is currently at ITN, but oppose !votes exceed support !votes for its nomination; if it were to pass, this DYK would be a moot point. Earwig mostly catches quotes, names of proposed bills, and titles like "House Minority Whip Steve Scalise"; I do think the excerpt dismissed the idea that his administration should have acted sooner is too close to the original CNN article, however. The article meets NPOV. As to the hooks, I share NLH's concerns about ALT1 needing additional context to continue, and I almost worry #2 might be an WP:EGG type of link, though the sources for all three hook facts check out. I also advocate replacing the New York Post ref #55 with a source of higher quality (see WP:NYPOST). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for reviewing! I've revised the close paraphrasing, replaced NY Post as a source, revised ALT1 with context and replaced ALT2. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All hooks work and the textual issues have been fixed. I suspect this will not make ITN given the way things are going (no comments on nomination in two days); Uvalde might have bumped this from consideration. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Swenson, Kyle; Portnoy, Jenna (May 11, 2022). "U.S. baby formula shortage leaves parents scrambling". Washington Post. Retrieved 17 May 2022. "A raft of medical conditions...had left her 4-year-old autistic daughter with a single option for food — Neocate Junior, an unflavored formula. But supply chain snags, record inflation and product recalls had completely upended access to the cases of formula she received..."
  2. ^ "Pediatricians warn against using homemade baby formula amid shortage". 11Alive.com. May 13, 2022. Archived from the original on May 20, 2022. Retrieved May 17, 2022.
  3. ^ Bailey, Chelsea (May 19, 2022). "Baby formula shortage: Experts urge parents not to make homebrews". BBC News. Archived from the original on May 19, 2022. Retrieved May 19, 2022.
  4. ^ Morris, Amanda (May 17, 2022). "2 Children Have Been Hospitalized Because of Formula Shortage". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
  5. ^ "Formula Shortage: South Carolina hospital reports babies hospitalized due to national crisis". WJCL. May 23, 2022. Retrieved May 24, 2022.

Izzy Borden edits

Izzy Borden insists this:

Republicans alleged the Biden administration was prioritizing the needs of migrant children over those of American citizens by providing formula to children at the Southern border. Texas governor Greg Abbott and the president of the border patrol union jointly characterized providing formula to migrants as "another one in a long line of reckless, out-of-touch priorities from the Biden administration."

belongs in the "Formula availability at the Southern border" section rather than the "Misinformation about shortage" with the sole rationale of "this does not say Biden policies are the cause of the shortage, and thus irrelevant to what the WaPo and NYT say about such claims."[10]]

Not only do the sources support the content, the editor's rationale that it belongs in one place but not the other seems quite peculiar.

Prior to coming to this article, this content flowed quite seamlessly in the Misinformation section, but the editor's edits have disrupted that flow and now we're going back and forth with no resolution. Based on my experiences with this evidently new editor, it is not becoming easier for me to AGF.

What do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Just a few more details, since this section is misleadingly labeled "Izzy Biorden edits". On May 15, Springee wrote 'The title of the "Republican" section fails IMPARTIAL. The body of that section also doesn't support "misinformation". The title should be changed to something like "political disputes about..." or such. This was clearly a bad edit [8]". And the edit by Soibangle was also reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_United_States_infant_formula_shortage&type=revision&diff=1087954889&oldid=1087954822 by EditPatroller2976, who also objected to the "misinformation "heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing peculiar about wanting that content in a different place - I am not disputing that Republicans have said what is quoted, or its relevance to the article, I am saying it is not "misinformation" - it is a value judgment. It can be in the article, and with context taht says that is the law. It just can't be labeled "Misinformation" simply because soibangla doesn't like it.

It seems to me that if the administration is bound by law, that makes the complaints about its formula distribution "priorities" misinformation, since it has no freedom to prioritize in this way. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 20:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Republican point regarding priorities is that if the administration had prioritized preventing illegal immigration, there'd be no need to provide formula (or need to provide less formula) as required by law. You can debate whether or not this is a legitimate position, or whether the administration is actually prioritizing preventing illegal immigration, but it is not misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is spelled out here for example - "a need that wouldn’t exist if Biden hadn’t effectively opened the border to illegal migrant waves" - https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/go-rep-stefanik-biden-owns-our-baby-formula-mess/. It's fine to juxtapose this with the legal requirement, but not to call it misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of shortage

We have s source that clearly says supply chain issues are the main cause, editors aren;t at liberty to dismiss this because they "don't buy" it. in addition to that source, the Atlantic article says "Recalls are common. Thousands of drugs and products are recalled every year, and they don’t create a meltdown at pharmacies or require CVS to instate Soviet-style rationing of essentials. So something else is going on here." and other articles (which I will soon add) point out to out of stock issues in October or November 2021, long before the recalls and plant shutdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(@Soibangla: I'd like your input, as the only other major contributor) I'm not trying to remove the assertion from the article, I'm just trying to attribute it in the text. There are (so far) two sources calling the supply chain issues the leading cause, but there is good reason to doubt that. First, there is no indication of any market analysis to support the assertion; e.g. a synthesis of out-of-stock data from retailers. Second, the manufacturer in question is responsible for 40% of production in the US, and this one factory is responsible for the majority of that: this disappearance of 20%-40% of production capacity necessarily has an enormous effect on what's on shelves, so the (other, vague) supply chain issues would have to have an even more enormous effect to be considered the "leading" cause, and this has not been demonstrated. It's irrelevant that there was some shortage before the recalls: my claim is not that the supply chain had no effect, but that no one can reasonably claim to know its effect was larger than the recalls. (Note, though, that 11% out-of-stock is basically baseline, per WSJ.) We can't ignore otherwise reliable sources, but neither can we throw critical thinking out the window when a source says something implausible, which these two sources do. Popular Mechanics, in particular, is not likely to be a good source for economic analysis; it's just not their area. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources put the baseline at 2%-8%. I added that to the article. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed. While supply chain issues are certainly one of the factors, the recall is a more important factor. I think a source also have stated that this is more about production scheduling issues and labor issues, not supply chain issues. ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 03:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "labour issues" are part of the COVID-19 supply chain problem - people who left the workforce during pandemic lockdowns, and are discouraged from returning due to financial incentives to stay home. Izzy Borden (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for In The News

@SunDawn and Izzy Borden: If you're interested, link in header —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 00:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Soibangla: Same. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what am I supposed to do? Izzy Borden (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote, if you want. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, I will. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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. —swpbT • 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. —swpbT • beyond • mutual 13:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_United_States_infant_formula_shortage&oldid=1196923846"