Talk:Grapefruit

Grapefruit is currently an Agriculture, food and drink good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Citrus fruit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grapefruit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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.
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.
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.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

First pass

Lead

(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

(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

(1b) The production table starts prior to the section header for production. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.

(2b) Please also duplicate citation, as above. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, but this does already have "(table)".

Pests and diseases

(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.

History

(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.

Reference spot check

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):
12(a)
13(a)
17(a)
23(b)
23(c)
24(c)
28(a)
33(b)
35(a)
38(a)
39(a)
40(a)
41(a)