Talk:Aloe vera/GA1

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

I am reviewing this article for GA and will post comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA initial review
I have done some minor copyediting throughout the article, mainly punctuation, the odd typo, MoS violation and some very slight re-phrasings. I have prepared below a list of further points of detail which will require attention. In addition to these, there are three main areas of concern that I have.


 * 1. At times, the language is pretty inaccessible to anyone who is not a botanist, or has not received a scientific training. This is not so all the way through, but it occurs in some of the sections. I have indicated some specific examples of this in my list of points. This article has the potential to be of interest to readers outside the natural scientist community, but it needs to be made more comprehensible to them.


 * 2. The structure of the article is inappropriate, with far too many very short sections and subsections. These need to combined together in a smaller number of generic sections. Single-sentence paragraphs should also be avoided.


 * 3. The references list lacks consistency and clarity. Book sources need to show author, title, publisher, year and place of publication, and ISBN where appropriate. References should be to pages or short page ranges, not to the whole book. Journal sources should give article author, the full name of the journal, date and/or issue number, and pages where the article is found. The formats should be consistent, and easily comprehensible. You don’t have to use cite book or cite journal, but the information must be there. I am also concerned by the tendency in the text to use long reference strings, sometimes 4 or even 5 together. This is unnecessary over-referencing – one or two decent sources should be enough for any referable statement.


 * My list of specific points as follows:-
 * Lead
 * Overall, I don’t think that the lead summarises the entire article, which is the purpose of the lead section as defined in WP:Lead
 * ✔ Done. Expanded lead. MidgleyDJ (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "0 AD" isn’t a real date and should not be represented as such. You could say "the beginning of the first century AD" or something similar, but not 0 AD
 * ✔ Done. Date changed and suggestion above used.
 * You should introduce the abbreviation "A. vera" before starting to use it in the text.
 * � How should this be done? It's pretty much standard form to reduce the genus name to a single letter in this fashion for any binomial name. Certainly in scientific writing the rule is spell it out the first time, thereafter use the abbreviated genus. MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at Banksia brownii, a featured plant article, and this seems to be the norm there too. Is this ok? MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, leave it; it was only a very minor point. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy and etymology
 * Not all the synonyms you list are found in [1]
 * ✔ Done. Oops. Fixed, added second reference for the remainder. MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not use boldface within your text except as section headings. Use italics for emphasis (MoS)
 * � I only used boldface for alternative article names. I thought this was normal? Again, I'd welcome a workaround. MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your alternative article name, "Medicinal aloe" is fine in bold. I am referring to the list, beginning with "Chinese aloe", in the taxonomy section. This should not be in bold. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✔ Done. MidgleyDJ (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Avoid single sentence paragraphs
 * ✔ Done.
 * Distribution
 * The statement that the plant has been widely cultivated at least since the 15th century seems at odds with the lead, which talks about 0 AD and quotes John’s Gospel
 * The statements in the 2nd sentence don’t seem to be supported by [1], which appears to consist mainly of a bibliography.
 * � The annotated map at the African Flowering Plants Database suggests that A. vera is present in the countries listed in the second sentence. MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the map doesn't identify the countries you name, which is a problem for geographical ignoramuses like me. But I suppose I can just about work out that the P symbols are clustered in North Africa and some islands, and relate this to your text Don't worry about it any more. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cultivation: This section is too short to be subdivided into three. The text needs to be combined under a single heading. Also, note the 15thC reference again.
 * ✔ Done. Merged into one section. Removed date. MidgleyDJ (talk)
 * Cropping: This is a single-sentence subsection. Also, why is a string of five references necessary?
 * � The five references variously list countries where A. vera is farmed commercially. I'd welcome suggestions on how to change this? MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You list 6 countries: Australia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, India, Kenya and South Africa. Ref [31] refers to Cuba; [32] to USA (but appears dead); [33] to Kenya; [34] to India; and [35] to Australia. So the refs don't relate sequentially to your list of countries, and Dominican Republic and South Africa have no references. If you can sort this out, I'd advise that you cite each country individually, e.g Australia[35], Cuba[32], etc - rather than having an elongated string. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✔ Done. MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mycorrhiza: Another single-sentence section with, for the general reader, an incomprehensible title and equally incomprehensible text.
 * ✔ Done. Merged into description, simplified and further explained. MidgleyDJ (talk)


 * Anthropogenic uses
 * Similar difficulties in comprehension.
 * Also, the phrase "A. vera has been variously used for:-" is an untidy way to introduce subsections.
 * ✔ Done. Removed introductory sentence. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Only the Medicine subsection is long enough and detailed enough to be a subsection on its own. The others should either be expanded, or collected together as a single entity.
 * ✔ Done. Merged. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Medicine: the 6thC reference again conflicts with the lead
 * � Need to better explain this. The dating of A. vera use is ambiguous.... eg. aloes is mentioned in the bible and while many cosmetic/new age companies make the link with A. vera it is not clear whether A. vera is the species being discussed. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am putting the article "on hold" for seven days, to enable these issues to be worked out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Antimicrobial properties and Biologically active compounds subsections both use specialist language and will be difficult for the general reader to follow.
 * � I've merged the former into medicine. Will simplify when I do a whole article edit for specialist language. Included links to articles eg: antifungal, antibacterial as I don't see a way around this. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let me know via my talkpage when your edits are complete. Things are looking pretty good, so far. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no editing has taken place for several days, I am assuming that amendments are complete. I will complete the review first thing in the morning (23rd)
 * I'll try and edit the language tonight to make the article more accessible. I've not had a chance to get to the other revisions. MidgleyDJ (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review, final comments
As more than seven days have now passed since my original review, and as I am going away for a few days, I have to deal with this now. Returning to the three main points which I raised at the start of the main review:-

1. The article is still quite difficult to read in parts, due to the use of unfamiliar language and terms. However, I do understand that an article like this is unlikely to be used for light reading; the reader will much more likely be seeking information, and in this respect it is important that the article is reliable and will stand examination from an expert in the field. I am not that expert, but I am reasonably confident, from the way it has been written and referenced, that the article would pass such an examination. I hope that further steps will be taken by the editors to improve general readability, but the GA promotion should not be held up on that basis.

2. The structure of the article has improved somewhat, with the disappearance of the numerous very short subsections and consequent consolidation of prose. It's a pity that there is still a one-line section at the end of the article, and that this information couldn't have been fitted into one of the other sections.

3. The formatting of references has been greatly improved. As to my comment about reference strings in the text, there are still too many of these, in my opinion. A combination of these, and the difficult text, makes for some really hard going.

All in all, however, I acknowledge the work that has gone into this article and believe that it meets the GA criteria. I will deal with the promotion now. Editors are invited, however, to continue improving it where they can. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)