Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/2

Apple

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result': kept It appears that the issues raised by the nominator have been addressed. Sources are reliable, statements are cited, lead adequately summarises the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro is too short.
Could more be said on genomes?
Fallen apples section tagged for OR since March 2010.
Apple Allergy section tagged for unsourced-ness and factual accuracy.
What makes solarnavigator.net, gardenaction, faostat.org a reliable source?
One-sentence paragraphs in "Health benefits".

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you notified the primary contributors and the projects that cover this article? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified User talk:VMS Mosaic, the only active editor in the top 20 contributors, and the two listed Wikiprojects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Fallen apples section has been removed (not by me). I've rewritten the allergy section with refs. Solarnavigator.net has been removed, along with the sentence it supposedly covered (which was unintelligible and not in the source anyway). FAOStat is the agriculture statistics database for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - definitely reliable. Will work on the others when I get home to better sourcing tonight - I just stumbled across this review, so this is the first I've had a chance to work on it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I've now expanded the genomes section a bit; please let me know if there is further information you would like to see here. There is a lot of really technical information out there, but I think most of it is TMI for a general article. I've also replaced the garden action refs and combined the short paragraphs in the Health benefits section. I think the too-short lead is the only thing left in your list - I will try to get to it in the next couple of days. In the meantime, please re-review the article and let me know if you have further comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been fixed apart from the lead which still looks a little bit light. Szzuk (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to get to the lead and keep getting distracted by other stuff. I'm still planning to work on it - I apologize for the delay. If anyone has any further comments on the article, though, besides the lead, please let me know and I'll work on them as soon as I get a free second. Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned because the GAR is due to close. Szzuk (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right; guess I missed that part. I'll make sure this is top priority for this evening, then. Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found a bit of time this afternoon and have had a go at expanding the lead. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of the noms issues have been addressed. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.