Talk:Mandarin orange/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ali Beary (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

I believe that this article qualifies to be listed as a good article. I can see it meets the criteria to not be listed as an immediate failure, as well as the fact that there is a bunch of information. Furthermore, there are quite a few images too, and, therefore, I believe that this should be listed as a good article.

Ali Beary: Good to hear, but this (as at Strawberry) cannot constitute a review. It is essential that both these articles are evaluated step by step against each of the six GAN criteria. In particular, you must at least carry out spot-checks on the sources to make sure they verify the claims they are being used to support. A normal review consists of a list of items which you would like to have improved, even if minor; each one of those items is then responded to by the GA nominator (me). When that is complete to your satisfaction, you can then pass the article. As the two GA reviews now stand, both will appear totally inadequate to the GA monitors, who will either discard the two GA1 files or take other action to ensure proper review. Please read the GA instructions carefully - they're pretty well-written - and follow them carefully. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright... here's my attempt at doing that. Apologies, Chiswick Chap.

Well-Written

From what I can tell, the article is written in a formal, or encyclopedic, tone. I see no grammatical errors and it is seemingly able to be understood by a large group of people. It follows the Manual of Style from what I can see, as well.

Verifiable

I have checked all of the citations listed in the article, and I believe that they are all from reliable sources that have no original research and no copyright violations.

Broad in coverage

The article covers several aspects of the Mandarin Orange, but doesn't go into too much detail with them. However, I would like to ask if that much information is needed in Taxonomy, and if so, why? It has tons of detail compared to other sections, yet I wonder if it is necessary.

Well, this isn't a lack-of-breadth. Normally Taxonomy/Evolution is a separate chapter, reflecting its importance, so I've made it so now, and divided it into sections like the other chapters. I've trimmed the text as the discussion of hybridisation was a bit lengthy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The article doesn't seem to be written from the POV of someone who loves Mandarin Oranges like it's their favorite fruit. I do doubt that a food related article would be written from anything except a neutral POV, but then again, this is Wikipedia. Either way, the article is neutral.

Stable

In revision history, the most recent edit is from November 17th. The most recent edit from someone besides the nominator is from November 13th. There appears to be no edit wars or constant changes on the article, so it meets the stable criteria.

Illustrated

There are a good number of images in the article that work to illustrate it. They contain simple captions, but many of them are listed as "own work", when I'm not entirely sure they all are. This may be a way of getting around the copyright filter, but I have nothing to prove that. I'll do more research on whether these are copyrighted or not, and I'd appreciate it if you could attempt to do so too!

Copyvio is a serious claim but there's no evidence for it. Of the images:

File:Citrus reticulata April 2013 Nordbaden.JPG - plausibly licensed as own work
File:Mandarinier Gortyne.jpg - plausibly licensed as own work, a 'quality image' by a user who has taken many of those
File:Mandarin oranges in mesh bag.jpg - plausibly licensed as own work
File:Hybrid origins of Citrus.svg: I made the diagram and have attributed the paper I based it on.
File:Cinpi2 (cropped).jpg - plausibly licensed as own work
File:Chocolate coated citrus peel 01.jpg - plausibly licensed as own work
File:Fresh Fruit Dessert.jpg - plausibly licensed as own work
File:Galler Mandarine Napoléon Lait split (22567613826).jpg - plausibly licensed as own work

The images are all by different authors; most have descriptions on Commons that sound personal and indicate direct involvement in the image concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Thoughts

The article is pretty decent, but I would much appreciate it if you were to respond to the Broad and Illustration sections. This is my first time reviewing a GAN, and I appreciate your help in formatting as well. Thanks! Ali Beary (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm satisfied. Unfortunately, despite the fact I've downloaded the script, it won't let me run it. If you could do so, that'd be great. Thank you! Ali Beary (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.