Talk:Plant epithet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"Vegetable epithets such as turnip may be pejorative, readily giving offence, or positive, typically names of flowers, such as the rose." I think this sentence would read easier if the two sides of or were written in parallel structure: "Vegetable epithets may be pejorative, such as turnip readily giving offence, or positive, such as the rose or other flowers
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it a bit further. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable insults
"a pun on a vegetable" has vegetable linking to Rutabaga. This goes against WP:EASTEREGG.
Well, the link was actually from "a vegetable", i.e. a particular one, but the word "a" is indeed rather small and easily overlooked: I've now said "a particular vegetable" to make the point more explicitly.

"In English the collective term vegetable is also pejorative." Is this referring to paralysis?
No, just the term 'vegetable' used as an epithet.

Flower names
No concerns

Plant surnames
No concerns

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concerns
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:
no concerns

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:
no concerns

C. It contains no original research:
Is there a source for Robert Plant's gardener ancestry?
All that's being said is that the name is metonymic: edited caption with ref.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
I've never seen a 0% rating from earwig before...
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It's short, but I see no obvious omission.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No concerns
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No concerns
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
remarkably stable!
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:
All images are appropriately tagged.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The captions are suitable, but I'm not 100% convinced about the necessity of 4 images. The lime tree painting and the image of Gemma Arterton seem particularly extraneous - neither one is needed to improve a reader's understanding. The laurels and Robert Plant are also questionable, but less so. Please help me understand why the images were added or remove them.
Well, having real people certainly helps to show that people are often named after plants, and the benefit of using famous people is not only that we can find images of them, but that they are recognisable to readers, making the message understandable.

Arterton: plant epithet "English rose", with citation, shown to be definitely in use today by the image.
It's certainly in use, but why is the image needed? It's inclusion doesn't make sense without the caption, which indicates to me that the caption could be included in the prose to sufficient effect. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, she's in text instead.

Laurel wreath, an image readers may not be familiar with (the Olympics no longer uses it) but it was highly relevant in ancient times, which as the cited text says explains why Laurel/Laura are used as names.
This is an acceptable explanation. ThanksArgento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plant: a good example of a metonym, a surname well exemplified by a well-known figure.
Why not choose a more immediately recognizable figure, such as an actress like Halle Berry, or a politician like George H. W. Bush? Theresa May) might be a good option, since the name "May" is actually discussed in the prose. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plant is metonymic whereas the others aren't; and he's an extremely famous rock star.
Having read the section closer, I get the distinction between metonymic and toponymic better. He is very famous, but I was trying to think of options that are more visibly recognizable. But with the caption, I think the image works fine. Argento Surfer (talk)

Lime tree engraving: replaced with Astrid Lindgren, a famous Swedish children's author named for the tree.
Thanks - I believe this is a better image, and it is public domain. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nice work.
Thank you.