Talk:Cereal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Review

 * I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Substantial missing content
Sorry to be a we blanket but: I saw some of the edits happening in the GA review, and I am concerned that there are some serious gaps related to important themes in any crop article (including environmental issues, discussion of the size scale and dimension of the industry, and the academic investment in developing better methods for cultivation in the face of growing population AND environmental pressures like climate change and biodiversity loss). For example, the connection of grain cultivation with soil erosion and other environmental impacts, its heavy reliance on nitrogen fertilizers, and coverage of the grain trade as an important part of the commodities market, not to mention emerging trends in their production and consumption such as trying to identify cereals that allow for permaculture, such as kernza.


 * Environment, sustainability: added section - tillage, irrigation, fertilizer, greenhouse gases, pesticides; mitigation with no-till, perennials like kernza, etc.
 * Size, commodities, trade: are mentioned and boldly illustrated.

Moreover, several of the sections have some questionable gaps -- such as the uses section which oversimplifies a number of things: including, from a quick read, the flour and alcohol sections which are missing some substantial major themes, covered in the main articles (such as pastas or non-barley grains in alcohol production and beer and other fermentation traditions using different grains in other parts of the world -- from whiskeys, to rice wines, etc). Additionally, the nutrition section is basically non-existent.


 * Pasta: mentioned.
 * Rice wine, etc: mentioned some.
 * Nutrition: promoted to chapter, sections on whole-grain and amino acid balance.

I usually am not so picky about GA articles, but this kind of top-level article, needs top-level treatment of scope, even if we aren't holding it up to a FA quality -- the gaps are kindof more substantial than usually happens with GAs,  Sadads (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will adjust article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also reading over it as well: this has a very heavy Meaditerannean/North American bias in how its handling some topics: Rice has been the main subsistence food for good chunks of the world for millennia, but most of the examples favor wheat and barley -- similarly corn has become a substitute for a number of different uses of cereals in the last decade thanks to strategic investment by the US and Brazilian government (among other issues). Sadads (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bias: Domestication-worldwide; Nutrition-South Indian, maize, tofu, not US/EU; Planting-temperate and tropical; Harvesting-both developed and developing; Storage-Zambia, Israel; Consumption-rice, porridge, etc; Foods-Mexico, Europe, Asia; Production-worldwide.
 * Rice, maize, barley, and rye are all mentioned in multiple contexts; numerous other cereals are described.
 * Thank you much for looking over the article and making suggestions. I am reviewing the new additions and correction now. Bruxton (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Chiswick Chap for adding citations to some of the stuff I added earlier -- I knew there were some gaps that I wanted to make sure we filled.
 * I only feel like the trade and economy section at the bottom is the only part that feels a bit deficient for me at the moment. I am going to make a pass at writing some content with or without citations (as I have time) in the next day or two, and we can work through that as well. Sadads (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the requirement at GA is for "the main points", and the article makes it quite clear that the cereal trade is economically important, indeed giving precise figures for its scale. This is certainly sufficient for GAN. The article is fully-cited at the moment, and a GAN is of course under way, so it is inappropriate to add uncited content, especially intentionally. To save going around the buoy on this one again, I'll add a bit more cited content to the trade/economy section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I've extended and further illustrated and cited the Production and Trade sections, and provided "further" links; these sections now constitute a substantial portion of the article. Any more would clearly be WP:UNDUE in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, so the thing that was missing for me is the outsized impact of the trade and industry on food security and some of these other factors -- I think between the edits we each made we are good.
 * On the uncited content, I have been hacking on this in short spurts between other activities in the last few days, so didn't have the space for doing all the research all at once -- trying to grab citations where I have them readily on hand.
 * I am feeling really confident about the scope of the content now for the GA level, Sadads (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead
The facts in the lead are all cited in the body. Have one question below.
 * "ground to flour" just checking if "to" is the what you wanted here
 * Yes, I mean something like "the grain can be ground down using a pair of millstones from big lumps to small particles of flour".

Spelling

 * Lead, "A cereal is a grass cultivated for its edible grain." consider losing the "A" so that it is just Cereal. What do you think?
 * No, the article is required by the sense.
 * Origins section "down for long periods of time," Seems redundant so maybe just "long periods"
 * Removed per item below.
 * Origins "Early villages show evidence of processing of grains" might read funny.. what do you think?
 * Removed, the next sentence is enough.
 * Origins section "the term cereal is derived from Latin cerealis" misspelling
 * 'cerealis' is the genitive.
 * Modern section "During the second half of the 20th century there was a significant increase" consider comma after century. Also consider a link to 20th century.
 * Added. Link is not really necessary.
 * Modern "crops tend to have low quality proteins" consider hyphen for low-quality
 * Done.
 * Botanical " A cereal grain is botanically a caryopsis" consider losing the "A" I am not sure about it.
 * No, it's correct.
 * Nutritional "Vegetarian cultures, in order to get a balanced diet," Consider removing "in order" as the words seems to be extra
 * Done.
 * Cultivation "are called cool season cereals" consider hyphen for cool-season
 * Done.
 * Cultivation "Warm season cereals, in contrast" consider hyphen for Warm-season
 * Done.
 * Cultivation Same for "Cool season cereals can be grown in highlands" Cool-season
 * Done.
 * Planting "Other warm climate cereals" consider hyphen
 * Not required.
 * Harvesting "developed countries is by combine harvester" consider adding by "a" combine
 * Not required.
 * Preprocessing and storage "spoilt by mould fungi" I was unfamiliar with both spoilt and mould- are these British english?
 * Yes.
 * Chart " and said to resemble meat texture more than others." consider "are" said to
 * Added.
 * "while the production of oats and rye have drastically" probably "has" works better
 * Done.
 * "Teff, an ancient grain that is a staple in Ethiopia" consider Teff "is" an ancient.. without comma after Teff.
 * No, the grammar is 'Other cereals ... include ... teff, an ancient grain... (so I've changed to lower case).

Images
The article has 12 images and ten of them appear to be properly licensed and free. I am unsure about two. I ask you opinion on the the two below.
 * Unsure about the license for these images File:Main Traded Cereals, Top Importers And Exporters (Quantities, 2021).svg, File:Production Of Cereals (2021).svg
 * I've had a nose about the FAO website, and it seems they use a CC-by-SA-NC license, contrary to what is stated on Commons. I've asked the uploader to clarify, but since the licenses indeed seem to be wrong, I'm removing those two images for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's all fine, there is a VRT ticket for the whole document, so the CC-by-SA status is correct. I've reinstated the images and clarified the permissions on the Commons pages. The ticket is linked from there.
 * There were 12 images and now there are 22 since the updates. The new images appear to be properly licensed and free. Bruxton (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope to go through the additions to the article this weekend. Bruxton (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

checks

 * I have made some corrections to the article to speed things along
 * Will check any new images.
 * I have performed citations checks by going through the expansion. I have not found issues. Bruxton (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)