Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area

Request for Comment: Description of the Quarantine Area in the Lede

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.

---

The original version, written by me and reviewed by Dr.K. at DYK [1], is thus:

1.The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is an area of the world which has been placed under a permanent quarantine by the United States state of Washington. [2]

This was changed by SounderBruce to this, with the edit summary "rewriting lead sentence: "of the world" is a bit much":

2. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area in the U.S. state of Washington. [3]

That was, in turn, changed by me to this, with the edit summary "doesn't make sense - the article itself states the quarantine includes Oregon, California, Idaho so incorrect to say it is "in the state of Washington"":

3. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area. [4]

SounderBruce further revised it to the following with the edit summary "at least include the country":

4. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area in the United States. [5]

I undid that change, reverting it to version 3, with the edit summary "edit makes lede inconsistent with article which states "All "foreign countries where apple maggot is established" have also ..."" - resulting in this:

5. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area. [6]

SounderBruce further amended this with the edit summary "Should be clear that the quarantine only applies within Washington state":

6. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area in effect within the U.S. state of Washington. [7]

Any further edits will run afoul of 3RR, however, (with deference and respect to SB's GF efforts to improve the article) I'm not satisfied with version #6 and would like to solicit feedback as to which version of the lede is more correct to the body of the article: 1, 2, 3/5, 4, 6, or none of those? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Current Version as Written by Dr K Version 1 or Version 3/5 - The construction of Version 6 (as I read it) is ambiguous as "in effect within" could either mean "the effect occurs within" (which would be an incorrect reading since it is an import control, ergo, the effect occurs outside), or, "the effect is applied by forces within" (which would a correct reading). Version 1 is unambiguous as it establishes that the quarantine area encompasses an extensive geography while also explaining that the quarantine has been applied by a sub-national polity (the state of Washington) and ipso facto has no legal force beyond its borders (a point made clearer in the body of the article). Version 3/5 is technically correct, though lacks a degree of specificity. Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Thanks for the ping Chetsford. I provided my own version. Hopefully this settles the matter. That was some fast-paced edit-warring, although I agree that your version was considerably more accurate. Dr. K. 07:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think this was really an edit-war except in the strictest sense of the word; I think SounderBruce and I were both positively working to an optimal solution. That said, I prefer your new version to all of the previous ones. Chetsford (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comment Chetsford. Sorry, I didn't mean to be critical of you when I mentioned the edit-war. Your version conformed to what the RS stated and should not have been reverted, especially so rapidly, and without talkpage discussion. But, hopefully, this will be the end of it. Dr. K. 07:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting blame on my part. I just wanted to clarify that I think this was a GF edit exchange between SounderBruce and myself and wanted to clarify that I didn't feel any offense as to his and my different opinions on the verbiage used. Chetsford (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Version 1 is best, though it might better say ‘of the United States placed under permanent quarantine by the state of Washington’. The quarantine area is stated as all the area in red. Markbassett (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comment Mark. The thing is the state of Washington has also placed under quarantine areas outside the US. See:

  All "foreign countries where apple maggot is established" have also been placed under quarantine by Washington.[9]

  Dr. K. 02:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to say that the current version looks fine. This little "dispute" was all in good faith, as we were trying to clear up some confusion over whether the line should explain where the quarantine applies (Washington) and places that the quarantine bans apples from (other states/countries). SounderBruce 03:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• How about something like this: The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is an region of the United States encompassing Oregon, California, and Idaho which has been placed under permanent quarantine. That gets the regional inclusion zone mentioned and also notes that the quarantine is permanent. That would satisfy everyone, wouldn't it? Damotclese (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• No. The quarantine zone is not limited to Oregon, California, and Idaho. It also includes part of Washington itself, plus all of the eastern United States, plus all nations on Earth where apple maggots exist. Chetsford (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

* The research I did quickly all seems to lead to Oregon and especially to Washington State as being the primary Area. e.g. http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20171219/wsda-to-expand-its-apple-maggot-rule

BUT: http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/NurseryChristmasTree/Pages/Quarantines.aspx

  Apple maggot quarantine; 603-052-021
  In the eastern United States: all states and districts east of and including the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Western United States: California, Idaho, Utah and Washington. In Oregon; Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Yamhill, Wasco, Washington, and the City of Pendleton in Umatilla County 

And yet, when I keep searching, only Washington, and a few Oregon sources are available. Not a single one from any of the other states. The key is to confirm, without doubt, where such an Area currently exists. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• The source you've found refers to the Apple Maggot Control Area, which is something established by the State of Oregon. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area, the subject of this article, is something established by the State of Washington. Chetsford (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

* How about this: The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a region of the United States, encompassing specific counties of certain states, which has been placed under permanent quarantine. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• The quarantine zone is not only a region of the United States - as per the article it includes all countries in the world where apple maggots reside. Chetsford (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Current Version namely: The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area established by the U.S. state of Washington. That is quite enough and details as to which states/counties are affected belong later in the article. It is nonsense to suggest Washington has the power to put any country outside the US 'in quarantine', which is what 'of the world' suggests, it may ban imports from such places, but that is different. Pincrete (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Constitutional issues

How does this state bar to out-of-state fruit survive the "interstate commerce" provisions of the U.S. Constitution? This should be explained. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Piledhigheranddeeper - I don't have a RS so can't address Washington specifically in the body of the article without running afoul of OR, however, to answer your question here ... in Maine v. Taylor the Supreme Court held the commerce clause does not hold free trade "above all other values." Separately, Section 436 of the Plant Protection Act of 2000 assigns the federal government's power of regulation of borders to state governments in cases where "special local need as supported by sound scientific data or thorough risk assessment" demonstrate necessity for state action. Another case in-use are California's Border Protection Stations which line its frontier with Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona; in that case the state has established its right to prohibit land entry into California without prior inspection for the Gypsy moth (among other pests). Chetsford (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 14:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Obiter dicta that may be ignored: The article is a mite short for an aspiring good article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section says that the pest-free area is periodically adjusted by the DOA, but that is not reflected by the article. Otherwise I see no issues.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Are "goodfruit", Encyclopaedia Metallum and the Washington Apple Commission reliable sources?

   C. It contains no original research:

   I can't find source #3, but part of the text is supported by #1. I am not sure that source #12 supports the text cited.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing I can see, an alphabetic list of county names is not copyrightable.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No information on economic ramifications or success rate?

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Depending on 3a, however.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area.jpg is a derivative work of File:Blank map of the United States.PNG and should be under the same license.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for your review, Jo-Jo Eumerus - responding to your comments as follows:

• The lead section says that the pest-free area is periodically adjusted by the DOA, but that is not reflected by the article. Otherwise I see no issues.

I've substantially updated the section called "Quarantine Regulations" to address this.

This update needs to say "almost" or something of the same meaning, not "Approximately two-thirds of all apples grown in the United States are produced in Washington." since the source says "Washington, which produces almost two-thirds of the apples grown in the United States". I trust that the "A mandatory inspection program requires apples to meet this set of standards that, in some criteria factors, exceed those set by the United States Department of Agriculture." is supported by the LexisNexis source? I also don't see "in the state with between 5,500 and 8,500 traps deployed annually" in any of the sources cited. "The area surrounding locations which successfully trap apple maggots may be further studied by analyzing fruit in the area for the presence of apple maggot larvae and, ultimately, placed in the quarantine zone." needs a pointer to where in the sources it is cited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've changed "approximately" to "almost" and changed "5,500 and 8,000" to "5,500 to 8,500" (sourced here [8]). Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've added quote parameters to two of the sources and, for the third source, added page numbers (the relevant section was a distillation of six pages of text so was too long to invoke the quote parameter). Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Are "goodfruit", Encyclopaedia Metallum and the Washington Apple Commission reliable sources?

I believe so as follows:

The Washington Apple Commission is a state agency. I've hyperlinked to the (new) article about it and changed the statement to qualify it as "according to the".

Good Fruit Grower is a trade magazine that has a clear process of editorial controls, physical personality by which it can be held liable for its content, and regular publishing schedule [9]. It has been cited as a source by MIT Technology Review [10] and PBS Newshour [11] and may be a limited RS in relation to fruit production.

Encyclopaedia Metallum has been sourced by The Guardian [12], the CBC [13], Deutsche Welle [14], and others and may be a limited RS in relation to music.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find source #3, but part of the text is supported by #1. I am not sure that source #12 supports the text cited.

I've changed the quote to make it true to source.

Not sure that the problem with source #12 (now #13) is fixed in that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was looking at the wrong section, I've updated it now with a new source (now source 20). Chetsford (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• No information on economic ramifications or success rate?

I've updated the sections "Purpose" to deal with economic ramifications and added a success quantifier in "Quarantine extent, procedures, and efficacy".

That's much better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• File:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area.jpg is a derivative work of File:Blank map of the United States.PNG and should be under the same license.

Updated.

Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if you see anything else! Thanks again - Chetsford (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Some source issues may still need a look. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus - thanks again for your review. I've updated the article and made notes above. Please let me know if I've missed anything! Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)