Talk:ReaLemon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.	More clarity and concision needed--see below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
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.	Fine.
	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).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.	None noted
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All clear on Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Appropriate, but see below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Negative press needs to be integrated, rather than being contextless in "see also" section.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Plenty stable.
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.	Both logos have appropriate FURs.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Could be improved with images of the various containers, especially the smaller lemon/lime shaped balls.
	7. Overall assessment.	On Hold.

First Read Through

Purveying? Selling might be a bit less obscure a term... Or selling and delivering, if you prefer.

Rw to "selling" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So was ReaLime ever actual lime juice? The first paragraph of the History section seems to say that ReaLemon really was fresh squeezed lemon juice at one point, while ReaLime was always reconstituted.

I have not found any sources stating that RealLime was just juice at any time. Sources available state that it is reconstituted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sales of ReaLemon realized successful profits in Europe in 1975" What does that mean? They entered the European market earlier, but weren't profitable until 1975?

The source doesn't contain content about matters prior to 1975 in Europe, and unfortunately, I haven't been able to find sources expounding upon the product in Europe, other than what's in the article. When I worked on this article, I essentially "used up" most of the sources that are available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This resulted in a lawsuit initiated by Reckitt & Coleman against Borden, based upon the notion that ReaLemon was attempting to copy Jif's packaging in attempts to mislead consumers, by passing off their product as Jif." Lose an attempt[ing] and reword this for brevity and clarity.

Copy edited, see diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2001, both ReaLemon and ReaLime had a 48 percent market share in the lemon and lime juice categories, making them a market leader." In which context? Above, the article said ReaLemon has 88-92% of the US market 30 years ago. What changed? Are those comparable numbers?

The content is presented to indicate the significance of the product over the course of its history, based upon available sources. The figures are not intended to be particularly compared, but rather, to simply provide context about the product's market dominance, again, based upon sources I could find. I have copy edited this area a bit (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"ReaLemon is a 100% lemon juice product manufactured with a consistent strength from bottle-to-bottle by preparing the lemon juice concentrate at a controlled consistent strength." This sentence is redundantly redundant, yet tells the reader nothing of how this feat is accomplished.

I have copy edited this area to make it clearer (diff, diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If ReaLemon is just lemon juice from concentrate, what is the point of calling out specific usages for ReaLemon? Wouldn't any ReaLemon recipe work with fresh squeezed lemon juice and vice versa?

I feel that inclusion of the uses sections increases the educational value of the article, whereas its omission would report less based upon what reliable sources report about the product. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some searches, I haven't found a source stating that fresh-squeezed lemon juice could be used instead. It is common sense that this is the case, but without a source, I'd rather not state this in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a QA issue/news article in further reading, rather than integrated into the body of the article? Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have integrated the source that was in the Further reading section into the article. This has also served to address your point in the Neutrality section above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I did some copyediting and it looks like there are some identical passages in Jif (lemon juice). Which were copied from where, and where is the documentation of that, per WP:CWW? Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jclemens: Here's the Duplicate Detector results. I always provide copy attribution in my edit summaries whenever copying content authored by other users, so I can state that I did not copy other user's contributions from Jif (lemon juice) into ReaLemon or vice versa. When copying content that one has authored themselves, copy attribution is not necessary, as per WP:NOATT, "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Run it on the version before I copyedited it, and there'll be even a bit more. You did that as well? Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jclemens: Check this Revision history for the page. Notice how only 10 edits are present before I began working on it. Along with these, there are only 3 minor edits by other users and your four edits. I don't think copy attribution is necessary in this case, as per WP:NOATT above. What's the problem here? Looking at the diffs for early edits in the ReaLemon article, and diffs in the Jif article circa this time period, there's no duplicate content that I can find. For example, see this result, where the only matches are standard content that's on most pages (e.g. "from wikipedia the free encyclopedia this is an old revision of this page as edited by") and simple phrases such as "brand of lemon juice". There's some overlap in the newer versions of the articles because the two products have some shared history, but the content was all written by me on both pages, hence no attribution required. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here is another result, using links from just prior to when I worked on each article, respectively ([1], [2]). Virtually no matches, except for "brand of lemon juice". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I just wanted to make sure I'm not passing a copyvio. Funny thing is that the text I changed as being bad prose was in the Jif article which someone else passed... Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. This was updated on the talk page to GA-class by the reviewer, along with an edit summary stating "GA pass" (diff), and also per the above comment, I assume that this has passed at this point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]