Talk:Thomcord/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose):

   I went through the whole article and found that the grammar, prose and punctuation is excellent. I found only a single error which I fixed.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is the appropriate length for the article, its layout conforms to guidelines, word choice is good and it has no lists.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (references):

   ✓ Pass It is suitably referenced.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   ✓ Pass The references are of high quality from reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   ✓ Pass I can't find any, the sources provided back up all assertations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   ✓ Pass The article seems to cover all aspects of the subject.

   b. (focused):

   ✓ Pass Very much so, see my comments below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   ✓ Pass After reading through the article, I can see no bias issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   ✓ Pass No issues here.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • ✓ Pass File:Thomcord grape - USDA photo 01.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue;

   • ✓ Pass File:Thompson seedless grapes.JPG is a verified Commons image with no issue;

   • ✓ Pass File:ConcordGrapes.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue;

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   ✓ Pass The images have descriptive captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. This appears to be one of the better developed grape cultivar articles. I looked at several dozen grape articles and almost none of them compare in terms of quality and content. So far I haven't had an issue with the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2. I finally found another grape GA article (Cabernet Sauvignon) to compare this article against. Looking at the format, layout and content of that article, half of which is dedicated to the wine side of the grape, I feel that it compares rather well to this one. So far this has been one of the easiest GAN articles I have dealt with. It passes easily, but I wish to have a second opinion to make sure I am not just giving this away. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I should note that there are a few problems with the Cabernet Sauvignon article. First, I found four places that need citations. Secondly, although I didn't have time to read the article, the lead has references, which suggests that it provides information not included in the body of the article. (The lead should just summarize the body, and therefore should not normally require references.) Otherwise, a second opinion for this article is welcome. I write with the intention of taking articles through FAC, and I use GAN to catch the obvious problems. The more eyes, the better. But given that there are so few sources available on this topic, don't feel too surprised if this one feels too easy. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Cab Sauv article was 100% sourced when I wrote in 2008. But obviously other contributors tweak it and make additions. (It will happen to this article too :P) I looked at your citation needed tags and two of the items were just lines that someone decided to hack off from the rest of the fully cited paragraph, which made the isolated lines seem unsourced. The other two were unsourced insertions from fly-by editors/anon IPs that were just missed from watchlist patrols. Now that I noticed them and confirmed that they weren't in the source material, they were removed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One other thing. I usually add sources to lead as a personal style preference because it is a good place to "introduce" a source with the full reference citation and then I use the <ref name="whatever"/> for the rest of the article. I tend to believe that it is unfair to the reader to read something in the lead and have to "hunt down" the same detail later in the article in order to find the reference when a cite in the lead would make things much easier. Many wine RS repeat the same information so it is easy to find a place in the already written lead where I can insert a new ref that I will also use later in the article for a more obscure detail. But, again, this is a personal style decision made with the reader, rather than GA or FAC, in mind. Silly WP:CREEP is one of the reasons why I'm not such a fan of the GA/FA process. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the fixes. I didn't mean to criticize your style—again, I didn't have time to read the article, but given that the lead appeared to be short for such a long article and that many older GAs have leads that don't strictly summarize, I felt it was fair to suggest a quick review. Personally, I use list defined references to keep long refs out of the body, but your points about tracking down references and WP:CREEP are well-taken. Very nice article, btw! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some minor comments:

• "which has a thick, slip-skin" (lead)—this doesn't work grammatically for me; not sure how to fix it

Will address in a moment—need to review Agne's latest comment. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed per Agne's suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The "Description" section appears to equate Thompson Seedless/Sultanina with Vitis vinifera and Concord with Vitis labrusca, which I don't think is correct—as far as I can make out, those are just a few of the varieties developed from these species.

If that's the case, it even slipped by Dr. Ramming. I'm not sure what the proper nomenclature is. Should I add into the parentheses, "a Vitis vinifera variety" and "a Vitis labrusca variety"? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Change made per discussion through Google chat with Ucucha. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• "bilateral-trained"—no idea what this means

This is why I tried running this article by the Wine project. I have no idea, and can't find anything online. I can try running this term (as well as any others brought up in the FAC) by Dr. Ramming. However, he's very slow to reply so I'd like to do them all at once. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks to the article Agne pointed me to below. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• "small in their length-to-width ratio"—why not "short relative to their width"?

Changed. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the article not called Thomcord?

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Web of Science brings up the following source:

Title: Eastern United States Table Grape Breeding

Author(s): Clark, JR

Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY Volume: 64 Issue: 2 Pages: 72-77 Published: 2010

I can't get the full text online, and don't know whether it'll be of much use. Google Scholar brings up this, which may be interesting (did the grape get to China?), but is in Chinese.

The Chinese article appears to be about the grapes growing popularity in the Central and Easter U.S. I could always try running the whole thing through Google Translate if I could get my hands on it. As for the English article, it's hard to say how useful it is until I see it. It could talk about breeding methods for the species, or it may just mention it in passing. Maybe Sasata has access.... But then again, he usually works on things without chlorophyll. Hmmm.... – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, I think the article passes the GA criteria (apart from some minor problems that I'm sure will get fixed soon). Full disclosure: Visionholder asked me to review this article. Ucucha 02:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha that this article doesn't need to be DAB with (grape). I was going to WP:BOLDly move it myself but I thought it was best to double check with Visionholder to see if he had any other reason for creating this with the DAB. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've renamed it per your dual-suggestion. I originally added "(grape)" to the title because it looked like a naming convention among many other grape varieties. My mistake. Anyway, thanks for the comments and review! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts The phrase "slip-skin" is viticulture jargon which should be clarified. Ucucha picked up on the grammar and I think the confusion comes from the fact that it is usually the grape that is described as a "slip-skin grape" rather then "slip" being an adjective like "thick" to describe the skin. The lead and Vine characteristics sections of Vitis labrusca has some ways of describing what being a slip-skin grapes means which you can adapt here. Ucucha also picked up on the bilateral-trained which, along with terms like "spur-pruned" could also be explained and probably linked to Vine training that talks about those terms.
I'm a little nervous about the slightly "weasel-ish" line in the lead about the grape coming to the supermarket in "the near future". That phrase is so vague and loaded (Next week, month, decade? etc) that is best to avoid. I know the sources don't give you much but the line in the history section of it arriving "in the coming years" is a little better, though not ideal. I would prefer if there was something more concrete like "As of 2011, it was expected to be in the market sometime over the next 2-3 years". But, again, I realize you can only go as far as the references take you.
Those things being said. I do think this is an outstanding article and I tip my hat to Visionholder for taking the scarce sources available and really crafting something worthwhile. I think the table comparing the grape to the parents is great and was really glad to see it included. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. I never would have found good explanations for some of those terms without your help! Last question: Any thoughts on the nomenclature issue Ucucha brought up? Otherwise, I've removed "the near future" from the lead, per your wise suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it that it is the parenthetical (Vitis vinifera) and (Vitis labrusca) that Ucucha is concern with? Truth be told, that is not terribly uncommon to see in grape articles but then I can see how it might jump out to someone with a science background and nomenclature. But I suppose the simplest solution would be to just label each in the beginning of the section as "the Vitis vinifera variety Thompson Seedless and the Vitis labrusca variety Concord", etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Does any one else have an issue they would like to bring forward? If not, I am willing to call this one a pass. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (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.

Where to obtain

According to email correspondence with with Dr. Ramming, the plants can be obtained through mail order catalogs. However, neither of us know of a reliable source for this information, so it cannot be added to the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomcord grapes are being distributed by Fazio Marketing, Inc. in Fresno, CA. Personally, I found them at Safeway in Rohnert Park, CA tonight.Deluxe (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The fruits can be found in many places. I used to buy them at farmer's markets in Thousand Oaks, CA. However, the "Availability" section refers to the plant. The "History" section talks more about the selling of the fruit. Unfortunately, there's little published information out there to expand upon. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference

Should the 3rd reference link to the full newsletter and also provide a month (October 2004) and page?Smallman12q (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call on the month and page number—I have added them. However, I don't see the value to the article in linking to the full newsletter. The (archived) PDF contains all the information needed to verify the content that it is cited for. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Slip-skin & seeds

I'm sitting here eating these right now, and can tell you that 1) they are slip-skin grapes and 2) there are seeds. Unfortunately this is so-called original research and as such I assume cannot be used to correct the inaccuracies on the page.Deluxe (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If the ones you are eating have a slip-skin and seeds, then you are eating Concord grapes. They must have been advertised wrong when you bought them. I've eaten both types, and know for a fact that the article is correct. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Market penetration

Now available at some retailers (specifically, Trader Joe's in CA), summer 2011.76.232.10.199 (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, this can't be mentioned in the article without a verifiable source. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)