Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/1

Apple

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: listed as a GA. PeterSymonds | talk 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been failed because, according to the reviewer, it has two citation needed tags!!! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a GA I was the reviewer. This article not only had citation needed tags which I pointed out, but it is very poorly written and needs a copyedit, which I also pointed out. It reads like a jumbled list of not-so-well sourced information. It needs a lot of fixing before reaching GA. That is why I failed it. Wrad (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to review the article and vote here.

First,I would say calling the article "poorly-written" is extremely harsh and unjustified. A truly poorly-written article can be found here Special:Newpages.

The article came close to being an FA only several weeks ago, and a previous reviewer said he would have put it on hold because the issues were minor, I am understandably surprised why you would fail it because it has 2 citation needed tags, anyway I am working now to source these 2 statements and remove the tags, although I still believe it is not a reason to fail.

I am also surprised sir, to find you approaching the article with a default fail position evident in your rather defensive message: "It's not well-written. It's not well-referenced...It's not going to pass without some major changes, GAR or no GAR".

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You mischaracterized what I said in the review and that is inappropriate here. I was reiterating my old position. What is all this garbage about my "default fail position"? I didn't say this was going to fail no matter what. I said it needed major work and I said what that work was. That's called reviewing the article. I'm dissappointed at your childish "tattle-tale" attitude and would appreciate it if you would at least attempt to characterize me fairly. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is trying to "characterize" you here, and it is not personal. I have come here to see if other editors agree with your fail decision or not, and so far it appears they all agree that putting it on hold might've been better. There is absolutely no need to be defensive nequiquam. I would appreciate if me, or my opinions are not called " garbage" or " childish attitude".

Cheers! :)

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is personal when you address me personally, which you did. Just drop this and let's talk about the article. It's pointless to for you to talk about how horrible your GA review was when this page is meant to determine whether the article is a GA or not. Wrad (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's drop this, although I believe my remarks were polite, _{-and not rubbish-}.

Thank you

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this article is close to what is expected of a GA, but it's not quite there. The major issue I see is in the writing. I think calling it a "jumbled list of not-so-well sourced information" is a little on the harsh side, but I do see why that comment was made. There are also more basic errors, such as "The apple tree was perhaps the earliest tree to be cultivated,[7] and their fruits were improved through selection ...". I don't think the work required is all that major, and I'd probably have put the article on hold. Nevertheless the article is certainly in need of a few hours work from a good copyeditor before it can be considerd as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Malleus. Majoreditor (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: One or two 'citation needed' tags should not be a problem at GA (for now, at least - see WP:QFC). I agree with the above comments regarding a copyedit though, but as has been said, the article is almost there. EyeSerene^TALK 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the quick-fail criteria... an article has to pass WP:WIAGA, and that means not a single citation needed tag should be in it. They're gone now, fortunately.Narayanese (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Reviewer again I got a little extreme in my second comment. It doesn't need major work, but I think my review was more than fair. If there are citation tags, please just fix them before nominating and save us all a headache. No GA should have any tags. Reviewers have every right to fail articles that don't meet the criteria, and this article doesn't. Don't nominate it unless it's ready please. Wrad (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually a GA can have "citation needed" tags, per GA criteria and CITE guidelines, 2.b. says: " at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" which I think this article clearly satisfies.

Cheers mate!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. By definition, if a statement has a citation tag it has been "challenged" and does not meet the criteria unless the citation is added. Wrad (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added a citation to the first one, removed the second phrase because I found nothing that supports it. Now the article is "Citation need" tags-free!

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good! I'll see what else it needs... Wrad (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate the feedback, and am ready to copyedit any reasonable amount of text you deem in need of rewriting. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the pests and diseases section. The last few sentences are making some pretty bold claims and should probably be referenced. Anytime you're saying something is the "most serious" anything it should probably have a ref. I also don't feel the section gives a good overview of the subject quite yet. I'd prefer a little more about what the pests and diseases are and what they do, followed by a little better description of how growers try to stop them. Basically this would flip the organization a little into more of a "here is the problem, and here is the solution" organization. One specific thing I wished was there is a brief comment after "A trend in orchard management is the use of organic methods." I'm left wondering what these methods are. Maybe just say "such as... " and briefly list two or three. No need to go overboard. Wrad (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point...will work on it, will take probably a maximum of 2 days, anything else? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

References added, last sentences either modified, sourced or removed. Examples of pests, insects and fungi were added with sourcing (Although I tried not to turn this into an example farm)... Anything else you noted? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Any "OR", "citation needed", "clarification" (and etc.) tag is enough to fail it during any part of the process (GAN, GAR). It's stated clearly on WP:QFC. Keep that in mind next time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some would refer to, and even quote policies that not only disagrees with their argument, but actually weaken it, and in this case, refute it. For example; "Presence of any cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags."

Anyway, I would not call 2 {{fact}} tags a large number!! They are no longer there anyway.

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the tags are gone now. Majoreditor (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not GA Some of the sources used are of low quality: rawveg.info, solarnavigator.net, vegparadise.com. Narayanese (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that some sources are not exactly "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but I would not call them low-quality. However, many of the other sources are "high-quality".

It is a bit hard to believe there exists an article where all sources are university peer-reviewed sources.

But thanks nonetheless.

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See William Shakespeare and Hamlet, to name just two. University peer reveiwed isn't really a must though, just a publication which has editors to check things over. Lots of publications do that. Wrad (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess there are these kinds of articles, but do you see anything in common? Both are FA's! And I would say that both of the articles above are about topics that are very often researched and published in peer reviewed journals. Anyway, Ward, do you have any other concern which I can address? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You could look aroiund in online floras (they are referenced), or search on Google Scholar or PubMed. Be careful with vegetarian and herbalist sources, they can be biased. I think the prose is ok, though the mentions of organic farming are a bit to many. Narayanese (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article is almost there. My biggest concern is that the "Commerce" section is stubby and incomplete. Majoreditor (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I faced a great difficultly in locating updated information about international apple trade for one simple reason; a company with the same name is apparently more important than the fruit to the point where googling apple trade would yield a report of that company's quarter yearly profits. I will work on it though :) . Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts. While the reviewer had legitimate reasons for not passing the article, it has since improved considerably. I think that it now either clearly passes or marginally passes all GA criteria. While there is still room for improvement, it's ready for GA listing. Majoreditor (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Pass for GA I think it's good enough now. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)