Talk:Christmas tree cultivation/up to GA Pass

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

Sources

Please do not

Create any redirect here from Christmas tree farm, there is a separate article being worked on for that topic, this article was born out of that one. Thanks. IvoShandor 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I have taken on Christmas tree cultivation for a review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by IvoShandor .

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written FAIL

1.1 Prose

  • The article needs some re-writing. Some sentences are awkward. For example,

Regardless of harvest methods, many jurisdictions have quality grades for Christmas trees, some compulsory others de facto.

Three clauses linked by commas. Can a 'quality grade' actually be 'de facto'? Does that mean local Christmas tree growers all sort trees the same way? Or, does it mean trees are actually 'stamped' with a 'grade' but the grading system is grower dependent.
  • Most sentences should be in the active voice. For example,

Christmas tree farming was once seen as a viable alternative for low-quality farmland but that perception has changed within the industry.

and

In the past, Christmas tree farms were relegated to less desirable agricultural plots or the "wastelands of agriculture".

In the passive voice, we don't know the subject of the sentence. Who thought Christmas tree farming would be viable? Who was relegating Christmas tree farms to less desirable plots? Was it extension agents? Was it county zoning boards?

1.2 Manual of Style

  • " " (non-breaking space) should be typed between numbers and units.
  • Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. If possible, use a convertion template, eg. {{convert|5|mi|km|0}}.
see 'One 1,200 acre farm in Oregon'. Need to give the metric also.
  • Whole numbers under 11 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes.
see 3–5 percent of the total harvest should be three to five percent of the total harvest
  • Sub-heading suggestions. Perhaps Pests and disease to Pests, disease and weeds. Perhaps separating out Harversting, Shipping and Marketing. Perhaps an Historical section. All of these are just suggestions.
  • Wikipedia:Orphan. The page could do with a bit more 'categories' or 'nav boxes'. At present, the page has [[Category:Christmas trees]] and [[Category:Crops]]. Perhaps the topic would fit other categories. Also, maybe {{farming}} could be used.

2 Factual accuracy PASS, but see comment The absence of a mention or link to silviculture and Forestry is odd. Christmas tree growing is one of those hybrid agriculture/forestry areas. The article is generally well-sourced, and makes good use of its sources. However, no use of printed texts.

  • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date, access date, language (if not English) and format (if a PDF file).
see Ref 3. maybe use {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |accessmonthday= |accessdaymonth= |accessyear= |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}.


3 Coverage PASS

  • A Wikipedia article should be broad in its coverage and not too detailed. This article meets that.

4 Neutrality PASS

  • This purely a Conflict of Interest comment on my part...but British Columbia is not mentioned.

5 Stability PASS

The article shows no signs of instability or edit-warring.

6 Images Weak PASS

  • The image used is appropriately captioned and bears a suitable license.
  • Note per Images When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I will get to the things that need fixing, however I must say, I disagree with a few points in your review, I have made some general comments below.
  • Subheadings: weeds are considered a pest by definition, headlines shouldn't get too wordy. Essentially, a lot of this is already broken out into unfinished articles in my user space, if you poke around a bit from User:IvoShandor/Christmas tree farms work page you will be able to see what's going on, thus I am trying to keep each article as narrowly focused as possible. That's probably why there isn't much as for specifics in this article. I tried to focus it on Christmas tree farming in general.
My undergrad degree is in plant protection. Yup, I know about weeds. They are a pest by definition. But the general population thinks of 'bugs' when they think of 'pests'. You're project is neat. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Right now, most of the cats it would fit in are redundant, I will see if I can find a couple more.
cats aren't required but if one applies then use it. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Refs: I don't use the templates, I find them unwieldy. I believe all the references have the appropriate information. The footnotes are abbreviated, full citations for items that are referenced multiple times appear in the References section. I did this to avoid clutter in the notes section because of the text footnotes I included, which were necessary imo. However if there is something missing there, in any of the full cites in the references or the notes, let me know, a glance at reference 3 shows a full citation in the Refs section, I don't think it's missing anything.
I've just realized that you use a slightly unique system of references. It is non-standard but conforms to Wikipedia:Citing sources which is OK. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • BC: I will add something in there, I have found some interesting information.
Yes, please do...although on this point I'm in Conflict of Interest. If you don't it won't affect anything. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Image staggering: mostly an aesthetic, personal choice, imo. Also, why is this a weak pass? I thought images weren't even required for GA.
Images are part of the MoS, so by definition are a part of GA. You don't need any images at all. But when present they must conform to MoS. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The wording of the MoS section on images isn't strong at all and I take them as recommendations, words and phrases like "can be" and "generally" leave quite a bit of wiggle room I think. I staggered a couple images where it looked bad laid out all right aligned.IvoShandor 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Links to forestry: a few references make connections to forestry, mostly in Britain, and British Columbia (because of the large number of trees taken from native stands), I will try to add something or at least include in the see also. As far as in the U.S. it is pretty much classified agriculturally everywhere.
I know it is mostly agriculture but there is a cross-over. And silverculture research is where 'speciality' Christmas trees are coming from, even though silverculture is - I think- under the auspices of the USDA. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  : Meh? This isn't required for GA now is it?
I've been hammered by this request! If you can, it'd be best ...or just use parentheses. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Will add, is it between all numbers followed by a word, or just numbers followed by a unit? IvoShandor 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Active/Passive: a long and never ending war this always will be, I will clean up some of the passive voice but I am not really one who sees the point in eliminating it all, some sentences are more awkward without it. I will change where appropriate.
Yes, where appropriate. My beef with passive voice is that it makes sentences vague and abstract. Who or what is the subject? This makes reading a lot less confusing. I find when copy editing often it is impossible to supply the subject. There is actually no clue. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am working on this, have copy edited up to Quality section. Not seeing a ton of passive voice but altering it where it comes up. IvoShandor 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Metrics: will get to this, just haven't yet, didn't expect such a long article to get reviewed so quickly.
This is MoS required. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking, nothing in the MoS is "required" (more relevant to images) but I planned on doing this asap. IvoShandor 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Awkward wording in lead: will change wording, to more clearly reflect that the USDA grades are only guidelines, the industry groups pretty much develop their own based off those.IvoShandor 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. It only needs re-wording. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would like more print sources, but I might note that a number of the sources are derived from print manuals and booklets. IvoShandor 19:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an issue mostly at the FA level but I've seen reviewers complain about it at the GA level. As long as it is referenced OK, it is OK for GA. But it'd be nice include a printed reference because they are available. Wassupwestcoast 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In general, you have made good points. You are taking the article in the correct direction. I will address each point individually. Holistically, the article is not quite 'there' yet. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made a few comments above, I might have my resident copy editor take a look but the other fixes should be pretty simple and straightforward.IvoShandor 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff I have done so far

This is a list of what I have attempted to address, for your reference.

  • Copy edited myself up to the "Quality" section so far.
  • Added some external links.
  • Trimmed the lead a bit (I thought it was long).
  • Staggered a couple images, the result is a better layout I think, thanks for the tip.

I think that's it so far, I will add to this as I work. IvoShandor 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Added forestry cat, added links to forestry and silviculture to see also.
  • Added a paragraph to the harvest section, which probably helps tie Christmas trees to forestry, if you can see a way to work the term into that graf or others that I plan to add, please do.
  • Haven't finished copy editing but I think I am going to hold off on most of that pending changes. An editor who hasn't worked on the article has already given confirmation that she will copy edit this article, member of the LOCE, English major, all that stuff. So things will improve markedly.
  • Oh yeah, and the brownie points I get for the addition of a British Columbia mention, see third paragraph in "Harvest."

IvoShandor 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Filled out status section with discussion of farm v. not farm (products, operations etc.) I have more to add on labor status but feel that is better suited in the Christmas tree farm article.
  • Added several references.
  • Added "Research" section stub. I think this will be appropriate for a few paragraphs on current research trends and where the cross with silviculture will come in as well.

IvoShandor 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Added a paragraph and references to "Research" section touching on silviculture.

IvoShandor 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible references

I've found several references that might help the article by looking at the forestry / silviculture side of Christmas tree research.

Some of these might prove useful in the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold

The review has been extended to 21 Sept 2007. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Odds and ends

  • "Being conifers, Christmas trees are vulnerable to a range of pests".
Odd sentence. Just being "alive" means they are vulnerable to pests :-) *"sudden oak death is a recent development in Californian tree farms." Wassupwestcoast 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"There are 16 elements crucial for growth; of those, three are obtained through air and water: hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, boron, copper, chlorine, manganese, molybdenum, iron, and zinc are obtained from the soil."
Perhaps separate into macro and micro nutrients. Deficiencies are soil dependent and thus location dependent. I might be wrong here but the soil must be slightly acidic. Wassupwestcoast 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • " One farmer in Oregon purchased seedlings for between US$200–300 per 1,000 plants. The farmer, a wholesaler, sold his final products for about $20 each, a profit of $2–3 per tree.[13]"
What kind of idiotic math is being used in this paragraph. There seems to be no relation to the cost of the seedlings to the profit mentioned. Wouldn't there be a $19.70 - $19.80 profit per tree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.208.155 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2007
Maybe move to harvest or an agricultural economics section (oh no, not another section) - but a lot of the info in the "trees" section is ag econ. such as "The best-selling species in the North American market are..." and "Also common in the region are Noble Fir, a tree which commands a higher price than Douglas-fir,". Wassupwestcoast 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Season! The article doesn't really highlight when the major harvesting season is except for "this work must be completed during a very short period in November". Wassupwestcoast 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Christmas trees going green New certification program urges Christmas tree buyers to keep it real
Xmas tree growers play down 'crisis'
N.H. family's donation preserves Christmas tree tradition Wassupwestcoast 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No more sections. Math? Hmm, you're math isn't much better, I am not sure how you arrived at the figures you did. I went off the source material but I am assuming there are far more costs involved than just that of the seedlings. I will include a blurb about further sod infections, as for the other sources, the article has 58, I don't think anymore are necessary for GA. IvoShandor 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Also not sure what else needs to be said about when harvest is, they are Christmas trees, and harvested in November to be sold at Christmas. I think almost everyone on Earth who has access to Wikipedia realizes when Christmas is. If you think of something else to be said let me know. IvoShandor 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Cricketgirl, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 10 September 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Although I see I've been beaten to it! Cricketgirl 22:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christmas_tree_cultivation/up_to_GA_Pass&oldid=1159052690"