The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
... that it is believed that Fenugreek in India (plant pictured) was known for its use in Indian cuisine 3,000 years ago, and the plant grew in the wild in Kashmir, Punjab and the Upper Gangetic plains?
Invalid status "yes" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"
Brianhe Thanks for the review. I have copy edited the "History" section. QPQ done. Capitalization in the name of the article and text has been changed to "fenugreek". ALT1 hook is acceptable and it is cited.Nvvchar. 08:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks good to go with ALT1 now, but if you prefer the original hook please correct the capital F to lowercase. - Brianhe (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Brianhe Sorry for missing the correction in the hook. It is done now. ALT1 hook suggested by you may need approval by another user as per rules. Original hook is my preference.Nvvchar. 10:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I have updated this template as appropriate to reflect the new article name; nothing else needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 is indeed catchy, but the source says nothing about "feedstock" and "oral contraceptives". Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I added a citation that should help with that. Brianhe (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. What do you think about writing the hook this way:
Yes, I agree. Since I suggested the original version of this hook, calling on another reviewer to approve ALT3. @Doug Coldwell:? Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This nomination may meet the DYK criteria but I do not think it should be promoted to the main page until the nominator goes through the article carefully and corrects the errors and anomalies present in most paragraphs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO, this article is fine for a DYK per WP:DYKNOT "Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality..." Brianhe (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
But they do have to be accurate, Brianhe. The first paragraph under Production has significant problems: there's a half-sentence with a different 2011-12 number than the original one, which is given only as 2012 even though it is 2011-12 from the source. (Checking said source, FN7, identifies the 125870 number as being 2010-11.) There's also the "exported to Japan, UAE, Egypt, Bangladesh and South Africa" phrase, though the source doesn't mention any of the last three countries though it does give several others; the table on p. 188 also does not list those three. I'm also highly dubious of the first sentence under Description: The chemical composition of fenugreek leaf is made up of carotene, vitamin A, ascorbic acid, calcium, and iron. That's the chemical composition of the entire leaf: three vitamins and two minerals? Neither of the sources cited for the paragraph provide such information, so far as I can see. I agree with Cwmhiraeth: the article is not ready for the main page in its current condition. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue regarding nutrients is a simple copyedit which I have made. @Nvvchar: could you look at the issues with 2011 and/or 2012 production? I think we should have another reviewer after this, as my contributions to the article now are non-trivial. - Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Brianhe, BlueMoonset and Cwmhiraeth. I have addressed all issues mentioned above with additional references and copy edited all sections. Nybe (ref 4) reference has been supplemented with a Chapman reference (ref5) in the description section. The production and area figures for 2012-13 and 2013-14 are from the "Spice Board" source. Please see.Nvvchar. 12:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of the errors I noticed in the article are still there, and if you read it carefully you will see them. What is "Farm yield manure" for example? And what has the WHO got to do with monograms? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the Spice Board source: the new 2012-13 figures are in a column with a "(P)" at the top; the key at the bottom calls these "preliminary estimates", yet you list them without qualification. The new "about 77.41%" is very odd: using such a precise percentage and then qualifying it is not typical (and, as it happens, definitely inappropriate when it's based on an estimate). And the point I made about the source not listing Bangladesh, Egypt, and South Africa appears to have been ignored in your revisions, and you've added new countries that aren't in the source either, such as Yemen. I don't understand why you're adding unverifiable information to the article when problems in that area have already been identified. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset Thanks for the edits. I have given only the firm figures of 2011-12 from Spice Board source. I have also addressed two issues indicated by Cwmhiraeth as I am unable to see any other issues needing correction. Nvvchar. 06:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I have done some copyediting so this is now waiting on BlueMoonset's approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The third production paragraph lists varieties, but not with an understanding of the sources. Two variety names have been combined, and one is listed twice (I'm pretty sure the two "No. 14" listings, with varied punctuation, is in fact the same variety). Also, it isn't clear whether these are all of the fenugreek varieties, some of the more common varieties, or just some of the many varieties. I thought this was one of the issues Cwmhiraeth was referring to, so I didn't separate it out earlier. There is a measurement "q" as in "10–11 q/ha". What is this? I can understand metric, as in kg, and "ha" is hectare (which should be linked on first usage). Be sure to link "q", and perhaps give its equivalent in another system. And speaking of that first usage, "95, 3004 ha" has invalid numbers and spacing. More care needs to be taken when making fixes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
q/ha is a common agricultural unit [1] quintals (100 kg)/ha and in the source. This seems to be bordering on GA type formatting and spacing review required of the author. - Brianhe (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about the figure. Eyesight problem. I have corrected it. "q" is quintal, now linked. Varieties of fenigreek as given is from a reliable source. However, I have removed one variety - No. 14. I presume that the varieties mentioned are commonly grown but I can not throw more light on this aspect. If it is still a problem I will remove that section.Nvvchar. 07:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please remove that final sentence, Nvvchar. If you can't see the errors then it's better it isn't there. I'd recommend combining the initial "several varieties" sentence with the end of the previous paragraph.
Brianhe, the notion that requesting that information be correctly written is "bordering on GA type formatting" is frankly beyond my understanding: if numbers like "95, 3004 ha" are fine with you, then I suggest you stop reviewing DYK nominations so long as this remains true: blatant errors should always be fixed before articles are approved for the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Yes, I have kept two varieties only and combined the sentence with the previous paragraph. Thanks.Nvvchar. 11:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I agree with your deletion of the specific names of the specific varieties. Thanks.Nvvchar. 02:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but why do we have an article on production of fenugreek in India, when we don't even have an article on fenugreek, period? EEng 05:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I must be losing my mind. Then I'll rephrase: Why is most of this article generic to fenugreek, having nothing specific to do with its cultivation in India? EEng 06:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This nomination has languished for some time. We have ALT3 approved, but this has no specific connection with India, so how about Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 is indeed catchy, but the source says nothing about "feedstock" and "oral contraceptives". Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Since I suggested the original version of this hook, calling on another reviewer to approve ALT3. @Doug Coldwell:? Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
ALT3 approved.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This nomination may meet the DYK criteria but I do not think it should be promoted to the main page until the nominator goes through the article carefully and corrects the errors and anomalies present in most paragraphs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the Spice Board source: the new 2012-13 figures are in a column with a "(P)" at the top; the key at the bottom calls these "preliminary estimates", yet you list them without qualification. The new "about 77.41%" is very odd: using such a precise percentage and then qualifying it is not typical (and, as it happens, definitely inappropriate when it's based on an estimate). And the point I made about the source not listing Bangladesh, Egypt, and South Africa appears to have been ignored in your revisions, and you've added new countries that aren't in the source either, such as Yemen. I don't understand why you're adding unverifiable information to the article when problems in that area have already been identified. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Passes DYK checklist. @Cwmhiraeth: GTG ALT4 verified in source.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)