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.
Honestly, that's ridiculous: all of this could be fixed in a morning or less: I'll do it now. I'd really appreciate if you ever do another one of mine that you contact me first so that we can discuss and evaluate the matter. This is a perfectly worthy article and frankly there's very little wrong with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sleep on this; I apologise if I have made a mistake. Thanks for the note in the second sentence, I'll take it on. I am generally of the opinion that a fail is harmless when it hasn't been in the queue for long as is the case here, although I understand others don't share this view. I certainly don't think it reflects on you as an editor; I hold you in particularly high esteem. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it; we know that tomatl denoted the fruit, which is sufficient here; what its Nahuatl etymology may have been is beyond this article's needs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving these comments, I won't be able to get to them for another day. I've had a brief look over them and it made me glad it's you working on this article. Sorry for the delay and hope everything is okay with you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first sentence of the article, the subject of the article is the berry of the plant. The following two paragraphs appear to primarily be about the plant, constituting 2/3 of the lede. This or the lede should be rewritten to avoid WP:UNDUE, or the subject should be redefined. Leaving this section until addressed.
Edited the lead to indicate the article is about the plant, with its berry.
important ingredients I believe singular is appropriate here, as it is not referring to the range of tomato varieties, but the use of the berry of the plant.
Singular it is; I note thatEnglish is happy with either singular or plural in this context, nothing to do with varieties.
Tomato#Naming should be renamed to include "classification", given the section on its classification as a vegetable or fruit does not pertain to its naming, except in a colloquial sense
The 'Botany' chapter has both a 'Phylogeny' section on phylogenetic placement, and a 'Taxonomy' section on the botanical naming of the species.
We're not exactly defining it either with Etymology and Pronunciation. I think having the short section on 'Fruit or vegetable' is needed here as it has clearly troubled some folks in the States so it needs a brief mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who used it to denote a plant that has not been identified worth clarifying that he means this generally, rather than his own difficulty in identifying tomatoes here.
Said 'never'.
The confusion confusion appears to be the incorrect term here, if it is correct, it should be established that this distinction has led to a confusion.
Said 'issue'.
The Pueblo people are thought to have believed that those who witnessed the ingestion of tomato seeds very wordy
I have been very unimpressed with Etymonline and it is doubtful that better sources do not address this etymology.
It's a perfectly respectable source.
I'm quite sure the "swelling fruit" claim is incorrect. degruyter search isn't returning any academic discussion of it, and the closest to a source for the claim in any article in Google Scholar cites this text, which doesn't make the claim. OED doesn't make the claim, and is a more reliable source for etymology than Etymonline. I might be missing something, but it is astounding that this is not remarked on in essentially all the sources I could find on Nahuatl loanwords. OED does include some interesting information on the etymology which could be considered worth including, although that's beyond the scope of GA. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended OED quote: The British pronunciation with long /ɑː/ reflects the usual treatment of foreign loanwords borrowed into English after the Great Vowel Shift, showing substitution of the closest English equivalents for the vowels in the donor language. The most common U.S. pronunciation with /eɪ/ reflects analogy with pre-Great Vowel Shift loanwords in which Middle English long a was diphthongized; W. Horn & M. Lehnert Laut und Leben (1954) vol. I. 346 note that it was formerly also in use in British English.
"Why the Tomato Was Feared in Europe for More Than 200 Years" is the source for The first evidence of domestication points to the Aztecs and other peoples in Mesoamerica: "The tomato was eaten by the Aztecs as early as 700 AD and called the “tomatl,”". I doubt it, given when the Aztecs originated. I have also been very unimpressed with Smithsonian Magazine's fact checking around history claims. The author's source for the claim about pewter plates is a book by a gardener who writes for magazines, and published by a publisher who describes themselves as "a leading publisher of step-by-step how-to books for both DIY gardening and home improvement."
Sorry to hear it, Smithsonian is basically a reliable source; removed.
McGee source; I have looked at using this article as a source before, essentially for this claim in a different article, and ended up avoiding it as it makes claims covered by WP:MEDRS, and doesn't meet the standards therein.
There are no medical claims here. We can find biochemistry sources if need be.
It's responding to the popular notion that tomato leaves are poisonous. Falls under Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc. in WP:BMI. I can ping in a medical editor to weigh in if you would like as I have had mixed to positive feedback on my assessments around MEDRS. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to avoid any suggestion of a medical claim.
The Sophie Coe text should have the date corrected (she died in 1994). Not required for GA, but an author link would be helpful.
Added orig-year and link.
Donnelly 2008 should be removed and the relevant Smith 1994 page should just be cited, given the source just says "According to Andrew Smith’s “The Tomato in America,”" and Smith is cited in the next sentence.
Done.
The sources in the history section in general appear quite old; while Smith is good, it is 30 years old, and more recent literature such as Hoenig 2017 that is available on the Wikipedia Library is not engaged with.
The history up to the 19th century is stable; we can look at Hoenig etc but the picture won't change significantly. I'd remind you that GA requires only "the main points", not a comprehensive academic history with details of every historiographic dispute.
Some things that should be added:
Page 102 of source [18] referred to below includes the quote There are about a dozen species of wild tomato, but the progenitor of the cultivated tomato, Solanum lycopersicon, is the only one to have been domesticated, and this appears to have happened only once. The wild species is native to the Andes, but seems to have been ignored by the indigenous people who lived there, even though they were formidable plant domesticators. Instead, the wild tomato found its way north, possibly as a weed, and was domesticated by the Maya in Mexico. The wild tomato with cherry-sized berries grows as a wanted weed in Mexico to this day. It is not deliberately sown, but when it pops up in a field of its own accord, it is protected by farmers for its flavorsome Lilliputian fruits. This practice may have initiated domestication. Some of this, particularly that it was first domesticated by the Maya, should be included.
Well, it's a folk etymology but at least a reliably-cited one, so it's in the article now.
It is well known that the indigenous people of the Andes domesticated quinoa, lima bean, peanut, potato, sweet potato and squash. They likely also kept and propagated seeds from wild tomato plants with bigger and tastier fruits... After domestication in South America, tomatoes were dispersed to other parts of the world and selected by local farmers and breeders. from this 2014 article. This is what I meant by recent literature needed to be engaged with. "The exact date of domestication is unknown; by 500 BC, it was already being cultivated in southern Mexico and probably other areas." is insufficient and outdated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote doesn't contradict the statement in the article, actually; and the "likely also kept and propagated" doesn't add anything encyclopedic that I can detect. I suspect that the edit to History about the wild ancestor and first domesticate, sourced to Nature, supersedes this anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the claim sourced to Nature superseding this, given the article the quote is from is that Nature article. The "likely also kept and propagated" apparently constitutes domestication for the authors, which re; doesn't add anything encyclopedic that I can detect, I think it being first domesticated in South America is certainly not UNDUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been through the entire article and it should be seen whether more information contradicts what is in the article.
The article is referenced 970 times according to Google Scholar. I am unsure whether this information is superseded, or whether other information in the article is superseded, a further engagement with the literature is necessary. What I performed is the start of researching an article; I didn't intend to find all the facts the article has wrong / should include.
The lede should be updated to reflect that it was not domesticated in Mesoamerica by peoples including the Aztecs.
As it stands, my initial point about the article not engaging with recent literature remains. If you think I'm being too stringent as a reviewer, I'm happy to ping in AJ29 or go to 2O for feedback. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now thoroughly confused: the Nature paper is cited in the article, so you are pushing at an open door. We agree this point is properly discussed in the text.
I believe the article clearly covers "the main points", from domestication to phylogeny, history to cultivation, food to popular culture; GAs are not required to attempt to cover every detail of the scientific literature. It's not a matter of "stringency", but of process: the normal procedure for GANs is for the reviewer to identify items that need to be fixed, i.e. a "main point" that has been missed, is unclear, etc, and for the nominator to respond by fixing it. We have been doing this as usual so far; we have (with a third party) agreed the article is broadly decent, not an obvious fail, i.e. the normal GAN process should apply. Therefore, if there are any more issues, please say what they are; if not, please pass the article as meeting the criteria. By all means we can ping in AJ29, in fact let's do that now.
Meanwhile, since (I guess?) domestication is an area you think needs more work, I've added a mention of a genomic study (Razifard 2020) that implies a rethink of the traditional domestication story. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point with the Nature article was just that I hadn't reviewed the whole piece but only part of it.
I agree that the article covers the main topics, which is covered under GACR 3 and I don't think I've ever raised an issue with that. However, the issue has been sourcing, which is GACR 2. The issue here is that the article has relied on sourcing that is outdated. I suspected this when I saw the dates of the sources with some familiarity with recent Mesoamerican historiography and quickfailed it and since it was reopened, I have done some cursory investigating and found recent literature directly contradicts important claims in the article. For this article, some more engagement with recent academic literature remains for the article to be reliably sourced, although I hope most issues have been resolved. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thankyou for the reference to Razifard, I think at this point most of the standard for engagement has been met, although there remains some areas of history that need to be investigated, such as claims around early consumption in the Middle East (I suspect more has been written in the last 150 years). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Added a recent source which concurs with the Middle East history.
Fruit or Vegetable? is not RS, I've looked up the email associated with it and the author's credentials are "Christian, lawyer, programmer", so not WP:EXPERTSPS
Source [18] on the version I'm reading on here is referencing page 102, not 145.
Fixed.
Needs evaluating: this article was released before the genome finished being mapped, and a few years before the 2015 article in Smithsonian Mag identifying pimp as the ancestor, but it includes the sentence it is arguably accepted that the wild cherry (L. esculentum var. cerasiforme, with fruit diameter of ∼1.5–3 cm) is the immediate progenitor of the cultivated tomato though L. pimpinellifolium is also a likely candidate. The Smithsonian article reads as very pop sci, worth evaluating veracity / if this "acceptance" changed over the 8 years.
An evaluation of sorts from this 2014 article: Tomato and its wild relatives originated from the Andean region of South America. Cherry tomato (S. lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) is considered the probable ancestor of the big-fruited tomato and was likely domesticated from the red-fruited wild species Solanum pimpinellifolium
Added the source and described both the wild ancestor and the first domesticate.
Well, I agree that the Nutriculture claim is primary, so we'll manage without it. The Disney claim is however a Guinness World Record so it is certainly reliable and at the least pop-notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tomato plants are vines, largely annual and being killed by frost, though sometimes living longer in greenhouses. is "being" appropriate here?
Edited.
Tomato plants are vines, largely annual and being killed by frost, though sometimes living longer in greenhouses. why do you mention that some sauces didn't include tomatoes?
Removed.
city of Tenochtitlan, now Mexico City you've mentioned this only a few lines up.
Removed.
The recorded history of tomatoes in Italy dates back to at least 31 October 1548 this is contradicted by earlier up in the article which says that it was recorded in 1544 that tomatoes had been brought to Italy.
Edited. The 1544 description is not unambiguously "to Italy": the botanist could have been describing Spanish usage.
growing to the ground could you clarify this? Do you mean close to the ground or is this referring to the vine behavior?
Close to.
as other fruits already available this reads as it was being treated as a fruit rather than a vegetable. Is it trying to make that claim?
No, said 'other crops'.
However, by the mid-18th century, tomatoes were widely eaten in Britain Avoid starting this sentence with "however" as it does not contradict previous sentence.
Done.
Contemporary consumption of tomatoes in Middle East is out of place, should be moved to As food#Culinary
Done.
US Sun Belt
Done.
fresh fruit market Am I correct to read that it is not sold as a vegetable in California?
Edited.
Reading the Wikipedia page for Locule, is locular cavities a tautology?
Edited.
on the increase increasing
Done.
Smaller sized fruit
Done.
whose effect on humans has not been studied MOS:DATED; also, is it still true?
Removed.
a total weight of 522 kg (1,151 lb) some clarification would be helpful if this is the weight of the yield or the plant (yielded weight is awkward)
Studies of the effects of the lycopene in tomatoes or in supplements have not found conclusive evidence to indicate that it affects the onset of cardiovascular diseases or cancer. I can only see one mention of tomato in this source and it doesn't make this claim.
Removed.
The 2011 review can be excluded given the conclusion of the 2022 study, and given it is 13 years old which is generally too old for MEDRS.
Collins 2022 has today been removed by the MEDRS police. In its absence, the 2011 review correctly indicates no known benefit, which is a safe statement, practically the opposite of the usual MEDRS claims.
Any update on the Schneeman 2005 piece?
It's been removed by the MEDRS police.
However, by the mid-18th century, tomatoes were widely eaten in Britain, and were used in soups, broths, and as a garnish before the end of that century. I don't see this in the source
Removed.
The University of California, Davis became a major center for tomato research. this needs an independent source
Removed.
As does "UC Newsroom, UC Davis Tomato Geneticist Charles Rick Dies at 87"
Removed, peripheral detail.
Can you provide a quote for initially decumbent?
Done.
As with Indeterminate types are "tender" perennials (unless this is a gloss, which should get an independent cite)
Edited, cited.
ripened in storage with the plant hormone ethylene better source needed, all the source says is they are "gassed"
Cited.
Much of the information attributed to "Not All Industrial Food Is Evil" is not supported by the source
Rewritten from the source.
What is the sourcing for the disease abbreviations?
Removed, basically a rabbit-hole.
"Umami: why the fifth taste is so important" This doesn't support the text
Removed by the thought police already.
Tomatoes are used in Spanish and Catalan dishes synth
Edited.
The BBC food sources don't support the text
Cited to Collingham 2006.
The Spruce Eats source doesn't support some of the text
Edited.
Some tomato varieties have fruit that is still green when ripe. can you give the page number supporting this?
Removed, it's not about toxins.
40,000 Spaniards → {{tq|as many as 40,000 Spaniards
Done.
Tomatoes are a popular "nonlethal" throwing weapon in mass protests... this paragraph is largely not supported by the sources
When Alexander W. Livingston began developing the tomato as a commercial crop some years would be helpful here to orient the reader
Added.
grow into other, fully functional, vines could you substitute other for new?
Done.
Some inconsistency in American / British spellings
Fixed the ones I could detect; feel free to fix any more such minor matters yourself, it's quicker and non-controversial.
The second photo in the cultivation gallery appears redundant, and the article has a lot of photos already.
OK, removed.
In the culinary section, it would be good to include how it is used in modern Mesoamerica/South America (i.e. salsa)
Maybe later.
The Storage section goes a bit too close to WP:NOTHOWTO
Edited.
Consider archiving some sources, such as Blackwell 1737
Archived.
Why does Beyer 2024 say It is possible that cultivation began as far back as 7000 BCE?
I doubt he's reliable on non-culinary matters. He may have been using Razifard 2020 who says that the cultivated tomato originated around 7000 years ago (i.e. 5000 BCE): I've added this, with Razifard's caution about uncertainties of dating and relationship to human history, i.e. divergence doesn't prove domestication.
The sources for When Alexander W. Livingston... don't support the text, except Smith and DoA, can be removed.
Done.
Tomatoes were linked to seven Salmonella food poisoning outbreaks between 1990 and 2005, any updates?
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.
Some COPYVIO on Encyclopedia Brittanica
