Jump to content

Talk:Grapefruit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grapefruit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiswick Chap, I'm going to tackle this review. A quick review shows this is a good candidate and clearly above the bar of a quickfail. I'll conduct a further review of it and I'll let you know when my first pass of it is complete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Can I recommend that you make a list of your comments and checks here (before the 'Summary') so that GA monitors can see that the review has been thorough? In particular, you need to check that the text is readable, and not plagiarised; that the images are appropriate and properly licensed on Commons; and that the text fairly represents the sources cited (this last is specially important). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review is still a work in progress. I'll let you know when I'm ready to hand it back off to you. I understand everyone does things differently, I like to continuously fill in the substituted template in the summary section myself and check off as we progress. I'll use the sections below and leave signatures where you can respond and either indicate it's done, ask for more feedback/clarification or dispute my idea kindly let me know if I've misread something. I'd ask you do the same, signatures allow for the use of MediaWiki discussion tools for quick responses. My apologies, I should have let you know my MO earlier. But not to suggest I'm not open to feedback, I'm still familiarizing myself with the GAN process; so please, do let me know if you think I've done something incorrectly. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I've made some comments regarding prose and clarity below from my first past. Minor corrections, overall a very well written article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Normally I would point out instances where I have concerns about missing references or suspicion of OR in the first check, to allow them to be remedied before proceeding to a spot reference check, but I find no instances of those here. I will note, as I have below, the references incorporated by way if (table) in the text. Proceeding immediately to a spot check in this first pass.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Overall, this article neither leaves me wanting more or is overly specific in one area. Noted one instance below of requested information.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No concerns.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No concerns.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All appropriately attributed, come with appropriate captions and supplement the text well in the appropriate place. Good use of tables where appropriate to compliment text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

First pass

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • (3a) "The interior flesh is segmented": suggesting "The interior flesh of the fruit is segmented" or combine with previous sentence using "whose interior flesh". The subject of the previous sentence is the tree and the complement is the fruit, but this sentence continues on without making it clear to the reader. Alternatively, consider rephrasing the first sentence so that it is clear the article is not (specifically) about the tree. I suggest this based on the hatnote "This article is about the fruit." Open to considerations as I understand trying to balance for brevity in the lead. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • (3a) "This can prolong and intensify the drugs' effects, leading to multiple side-effects such as abnormal heart rhythms, bleeding inside the stomach, low blood pressure, difficulty breathing, and dizziness." This feels very specific, and might be benefited by a qualifier. Using the possessive "the drug's" makes it feel like I should already know specifically what's going on. I would suggest reworking this along the lines of "common effects of these interactions include ... and depend on the mechanism of the drug", given that below, the specific section mentions both increased and decreased effects. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.

Nutrition

[edit]
  • (2b) Please duplicate the citation from the table inline, so this paragraph has a citation that is visible for different skins. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The food data tables are in regularly-updated templates so the links are unsafe to duplicate, and anyway basically inaccessible. I've added "(table)" to point to the refs, which is actually the usual solution here; not sure how we'd missed it in this case.

Production

[edit]

Pests and diseases

[edit]
  • (3b) Are the citrus canker and citrus greening disease bacteria known? I haven't open the citation yet, but think it may be beneficial to include the bacterial binomial name. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added; these are bordering on clutter as people go by the name of the disease.
      • That's a fair concern and would have been fine to exclude as well, or include in a {{efn}}. My bias is probably to include given my day job and natural curiosity to these things.

History

[edit]
  • (1b) The instances where the authors are used to identify the article or the report are, according to my understanding, not out of line with our citation style. I will admit that it caught me off guard the first time, but once I understood the narrative style, it made sense. Is this a deliberate choice or a relic of an older article? Do you think it would benefit our reader to change the subject of the sentence and restructure the grammar to place less emphasis on the papers themselves? Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited: I think the historic pioneers need names; I agree the recent researchers don't.
      • I agree with that exactly and I think it reads much more clearly now.

Reference spot check

[edit]

A spot check of 25% of the listed references, generated randomly:

  • 1(c): The article states 5–6 m and 13–15 m, but the reference gives 4.5-6 m and 13.7 m for the same values respectively. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • 1(i): This is an acceptable summary of the work.
  • 1(m): Confirmed.
  • 2(a): Assuming good faith with respect to offline works, text is confirmed in the citation quote.
  • 9(a): Confirmed.
  • 12(a): Confirmed on the statement that it is more difficult to grow than other varieties. The remainder of the sentence is also confirmed in the immediately preceding citation. Confirmed and not a violation of SYNTH or OR.
  • 13(a)
  • 17(a)
  • 23(b)
  • 23(c)
  • 24(c)
  • 28(a)
  • 33(b)
  • 35(a)
  • 38(a)
  • 39(a)
  • 40(a)
  • 41(a)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grapefruit&oldid=1257584511"