Talk:Cereal
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cereal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Cereal has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 15, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]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:Cereal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Review
[edit]- I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Completed discussion
|
---|
Substantial missing content[edit]Sorry to be a we blanket but: I saw some of the edits happening in the GA review, and I am concerned that there are some serious gaps related to important themes in any crop article (including environmental issues, discussion of the size scale and dimension of the industry, and the academic investment in developing better methods for cultivation in the face of growing population AND environmental pressures like climate change and biodiversity loss). For example, the connection of grain cultivation with soil erosion and other environmental impacts, its heavy reliance on nitrogen fertilizers, and coverage of the grain trade as an important part of the commodities market, not to mention emerging trends in their production and consumption such as trying to identify cereals that allow for permaculture, such as kernza.
Moreover, several of the sections have some questionable gaps -- such as the uses section which oversimplifies a number of things: including, from a quick read, the flour and alcohol sections which are missing some substantial major themes, covered in the main articles (such as pastas or non-barley grains in alcohol production and beer and other fermentation traditions using different grains in other parts of the world -- from whiskeys, to rice wines, etc). Additionally, the nutrition section is basically non-existent.
I usually am not so picky about GA articles, but this kind of top-level article, needs top-level treatment of scope, even if we aren't holding it up to a FA quality -- the gaps are kindof more substantial than usually happens with GAs, Sadads (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Completed items
|
---|
Lead[edit]The facts in the lead are all cited in the body. Have one question below.
Spelling[edit]
|
Completed citations check
|
---|
Citations[edit]
|
Images
[edit]The article has 12 images and ten of them appear to be properly licensed and free. I am unsure about two. I ask you opinion on the the two below.
Unsure about the license for these images File:Main Traded Cereals, Top Importers And Exporters (Quantities, 2021).svg, File:Production Of Cereals (2021).svg
- I've had a nose about the FAO website, and it seems they use a CC-by-SA-NC license, contrary to what is stated on Commons. I've asked the uploader to clarify, but since the licenses indeed seem to be wrong, I'm removing those two images for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, it's all fine, there is a VRT ticket for the whole document, so the CC-by-SA status is correct. I've reinstated the images and clarified the permissions on the Commons pages. The ticket is linked from there.
- I've had a nose about the FAO website, and it seems they use a CC-by-SA-NC license, contrary to what is stated on Commons. I've asked the uploader to clarify, but since the licenses indeed seem to be wrong, I'm removing those two images for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
There were 12 images and now there are 22 since the updates. The new images appear to be properly licensed and free. Bruxton (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I hope to go through the additions to the article this weekend. Bruxton (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
checks
[edit]I have made some corrections to the article to speed things along
Will check any new images.
I have performed citations checks by going through the expansion. I have not found issues. Bruxton (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Chart
[edit]Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A pleasure to review. thank you for your work! |
- Wikipedia good articles
- Agriculture, food and drink good articles
- GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class Agriculture articles
- High-importance Agriculture articles
- WikiProject Agriculture articles
- GA-Class plant articles
- High-importance plant articles
- WikiProject Plants articles
- GA-Class Food and drink articles
- Top-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles