Talk:Cassava/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 11:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and, based on my previous experience with the nominator, likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, and let's hope so! 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure. This looks like a big one! simongraham (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * Overall, the standard of the article is good is some places and variable in others.
 * Noted.
 * It is a Level 4 vital article.
 * Noted.
 * It is of sufficient length, with 4,210 words of readable prose.
 * Noted.
 * The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 276 words.
 * Noted.
 * It is currently assessed as a B class article.
 * Noted.
 * Earwig gives a 84.9% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very likely. The highest hit is with an article on the website cargohandbook.com[]. Entire sentences match, such as "Cassava is a major staple food in the developing world, providing a basic diet for over half a billion people. It is one of the most drought-tolerant crops, capable of growing on marginal soils. Nigeria is the world's largest producer of cassava" and "cassava is one of the most drought-tolerant crops, can be successfully grown on marginal soils, and gives reasonable yields where many other crops do not grow well." It is unclear which article came first but I suggest the precautionary principle would promote rephrasing. The website also has an article on cassava[] that may also be worth looking at to see if there are copy violations.
 * Reworded. Earwig gives no match to their Cassava article.
 * There is also 45.4% similarity with a page on a website called Stuart's Brazil[], which was written in 2009. Some of the phrases are used by both of these and the article, such as "Nigeria is the world's largest producer of cassava".
 * Reworded.
 * Thank you. Earwig now gives a 3.8% chance of copyright violation, which is very unlikely.


 * The article quotes CIPD: "Chronic, low-level cyanide exposure is associated with the development of goiter and with tropical ataxic neuropathy, a nerve-damaging disorder that renders a person unsteady and uncoordinated. Severe cyanide poisoning, particularly during famines, is associated with outbreaks of a debilitating, irreversible paralytic disorder called konzo and, in some cases, death. The incidence of konzo and tropical ataxic neuropathy can be as high as three percent in some areas". Suggest rephrasing this to avoid the risk of it being a superfluous MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
 * Done.


 * Authorship is diverse, with 382 authors listed as contributing. The highest percentage contributions are from UpdateNerd and Chiswick Chap, each with 8.6%.
 * Noted.


 * The article is well sourced, but more sources from the countries where it is grown and eaten, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, would help fight Systemic Bias.
 * Noted.


 * The first sentence needs work, particularly the clause "commonly called cassava (/kəˈsɑːvə/), manioc, yuca (among numerous regional names)". Is there a reason that only cassava has IPA pronunciation? Why is manioc the only name with a footnote? Suggest removing it as per WP:CITELEAD, "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Should there be an "or" at the end of the list? Should there be a comma after the bracket to signal the end of the clause?
 * Done, and yes.
 * Excellent. Thank you.


 * Suggest including a section on the various names early in the article. For example, it would be of value to know what they are, where they are found, how they differ (for example, how cassava and tapioca differ in usage), and their etymologies. Cellabos & de la Cruz, 2012[] may be a useful source. Suggest this could be a chance to include names from outside the English-speaking world. For example, Guira et al, 2017[] list a number of names from Burkina Faso.
 * Not convinced we should go so far into multilingual dictionary territory; after all, we're not a dictionary.
 * I somewhat agree. Sections covering scientific and popular names occur on GA articles, such as that on Carrot and Hypericum perforatum and the names listed in the first sentence need sources, so it would be reasonable to have a section on the names and their etymologies. Having at least some from non-English cultures would, I feel, be a good counter to systemic bias.
 * A worthy aim, if an optional one, but I don't think that etymology is the right place to implement it.


 * Consider adding a clarification to "Spanish traders, planted" such as "Spanish traders, some of whom planted" (if this is correct).
 * Tweaked.
 * Excellent work. Given that other countries are linked in the article (e.g. Nigeria), would you like to link Goa, Malacca, Eastern Indonesia, Timor and the Philippines, or reduce the overall linking of countries? MOS:OVERLINK states that major examples of countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese) should "generally not be linked" but it seems to me that some linking is appropriate in some cases.
 * Unlinked several.


 * There are also a few duplicate links in the article, including some countries, like antinutrients, carbohydrates, cultivars, Democratic Republic of the Congo, goiter, konzo, linamarase, Nigeria, protein, South America, staple/staple food, sub-Saharan Africa and vitamin C. Can you look into those please?
 * Removed all those highlighted by the tool.


 * Can you explain "With its high food potential, it had become a staple food of the native populations of northern South America".
 * Edited.
 * Thank you.


 * Is the "the" superfluous in "the Hi-C"?
 * British English habit. Feel free to remove it if you prefer.


 * There seems to be 100% overlap between Taxonomy and History. Suggest one title.
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you.


 * "Maize and cassava are now important staple foods" seems to be more about the current situation rather than history. Suggest moving to the relevant section.
 * Removed.


 * The section on Pests reads as a series of unconnected paragraphs. Suggest it be reframed, with an initial overview of the topic (various threats, viral, bacterial, nematodes etc) then each covered in a separate paragraph with context.
 * Done.
 * Thank you.


 * The section on biofuel relies on old sources. Is there any more current information?
 * Rewritten from newer sources.
 * And the new section feels more summary style. Thank you.


 * The paragraphs on Guyana and cassareep are disjointed and lack narrative. Suggest rewriting as one paragraph.
 * Done.
 * Thank you.


 * The section titled Economic importance seems disproportionally short. Suggest merging with Production, especially as the See also leads to a page on production.
 * Done.
 * Excellent work. I feel that reads well.


 * Suggest moving the toxicity section after Uses to improve flow.
 * Two points here: firstly, toxicity is part of the nature of cassava, and we describe the material, its cultivation and so on first, then how it can be used afterwards; secondly, the 'Uses' section mentions toxicity repeatedly, so it makes sense to have had the matter explained first.
 * Seems reasonable.


 * There are a number of one sentence paragraphs, such as "This crop suffers from a rust, rust of cassava, caused by Uromyces manihotis". Suggest merging some of them with longer paragraphs (and perhaps splitting some of the longer ones) to ease reading. Please expand others, such as that under Laundry starch, which lacks figures or context.
 * Done a bit; added a context link for the laundry starch. In the absence of a picture which is definitely of cassava starch, not sure there's much to add, and nor is there anything really to merge the subsection into.
 * There are a number of images in the document labelled as starch, including Cassava starch processing in Colombia's southwestern Cauca department.jpg. Are any of these helpful?
 * Removed that one, the rest seem to give a helpful picture of the processes involved.


 * There seems undue weight to some projects and technologies. Such as BioCassava Plus. The mentions read more like a news article, e.g. "In November 2008, China-based Hainan Yedao Group invested US$51.5 million in a new biofuel facility that is expected to produce 120 million litres (33 million US gallons) a year of bioethanol from cassava plants." This sounds to me like a press release statement. Do we have any context for these? Are they particular well represented in impartial media?
 * Biocassava Plus: removed that mention. Hainan: trimmed.
 * Thank you.


 * In general, the images have appropriate CC or PD tags. File:Manihot esculenta - Köhler–s Medizinal-Pflanzen-090.jpg, and File:Albert Eckhout - Mandioca.jpg lack US PD tags.
 * Added.
 * Thank you.


 * Although not a GA criterion, suggest adding alt text to the images for accessibility.
 * Noted.


 * Again, not a GA criterion but the list of WikiProjects seems rather small given the reach of the crop. Suggest that this is expanded, at least with the addition of WP:AFRICA and the countries mentioned in the text.
 * Good point, added.

This is quite a different nomination to many I have seen as the number of authors makes the text a challenge. The copy violation is also a concern. Please take a look at these and my other comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

- all comments addressed to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Thank you. Please see my comments above. It feels to me that there is an opportunity to address systemic bias with this article as much of the story of cassava is in non-Western countries. Did you have a chance to look into other sources?  simongraham (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And it discusses what happens in multiple countries and regions, neutrally, from reliable sources. The article certainly covers "the main points" as it should, and I don't see that there is any regional bias, not least because there really isn't a "Western" take on this crop unless perhaps it'd be "hm, useful biofuel?", something we cover very summarily. As for scientific sources, the article makes use of several scholarly Latin American and African sources already; and it mentions organisations like the IITA.


 * What we can do is have a bit on cassava folklore, which is totally non-Western. I've added a section on this, with stories from several countries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks great. Nonetheless, I believe 3a would denote the inclusion of the history and etymology of the common names and binomial nomenclature and 2b that they are sourced from reliable sources. Otherwise, I believe that is everything. simongraham (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - all done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. I will finish my assessment now.

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Excellent work, Chiswick Chap. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)