Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/4

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 • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited prose, and sections that are undeveloped, leading me to think that this article is not complete. Upon posting concerns on the talk page, an editor addressed why there might be a short amount of prose, but also raised some potential MEDRS issues. Other editors agreed that GAR was necessary, so here we are. I look forward to additional commentary. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the gallery, redundant with main-linked List of apple cultivars, as plainly WP:UNDUE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some checking of information and figured out where the information in at least one of the many uncited sentences came from. I was thinking of making a collapsed full table of synonyms like I did for Tetraneuris acaulis, but wanted to run that by other editors since this is a good article. Would it add or detract in this case? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full table is probably out of the GAR's scope, so it must be a low priority item at the moment, though a brief subsection on taxonomic history, giving as the GA criteria state "the main points" would go well in the Taxonomy section, if that is one of those thought to be "undeveloped". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey team, I think the culinary section will need attention as well. The sourcing is not great, and I just had to take a source off. Will poke around when I have time for a source. ForksForks (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't already know about it, you might want to try archive.org to find some accessible books to support information in the culinary section. If you don't get there first I'll also look into culinary information after I finish distracting myself with looking into the description section. I think I can find some more recent sources to replace some dead websites. The dead websites seem perfectly good, but I think there will be some equally good ones that are still alive. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've, er, tarted up the cookery section using Davidson. There's much more there but we have probably covered "the main points". We could use him to replace most of the other sources, actually, if required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your additions have really strengthened the core of the article. I also am replacing some sources with higher quality ones and still finding some information that needs moderate amounts of correction. I used a cookbook as a source about apple uses, but I wish I had found a book more about cultural traditions and history. One thing: You took out The Story of the Apple by Mabberley as a further reading when I used it as a source. I think it is an important enough book about apples that it ought to still appear in further reading. I didn't see anything at Wikipedia:Further reading that says a book cannot both be a reference and in the FR section, but I'll defer to your greater experience. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is now in a clean state, fully cited, and covers what it should in reasonable detail. I suggest we close this as completed satisfactorily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (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.