Talk:Orange (word)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AerobicFox (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The article overall looks good, and with a few minor tweaks should meet GA requirements. With no further opening statement I'm just going to jump ahead into the in depth review.

1.:
 * (a) ;

The prose adequately describes the information in unambiguous terms except in the below two cases.
 * It is generally thought that Old French borrowed the Italian melarancio ("fruit of the orange tree", with mela "fruit") as pume orenge (with pume "fruit"),[3][4] though pume orenge is attested earlier than melarancio.

So does this mean that it is generally incorrectly thought that the Old French borrowed the Italian word, or is it just that it has not been confirmed that melrancio dates back as far as it is believed to?


 * though there are half rhymes such as hinge, lozenge, syringe, flange, Stonehenge, or porridge.

It doesn't seem to me that porridge is a half rhyme of orange. Could someone explain how it is, or is this a mistake?

The below sentence:
 * The first appearance in English in the 13th century referred to the fruit. The earliest attested use of the word in reference to the colour is from the 16th century.

Should be restated to something like:
 * The first known use of the word orange in English was in the 13th century where it was used to describe the fruit.

Something to clarify that this is its first known appearance, and not the absolute first time it was ever used. Any advice for how to reword some of the prose in the Etymology section to increase its flow and readability would be appreciated.

I'm marking this as wait in order to get some feed back on the Itallian-->Old French and porridge half rhyme.


 * (b).

All the wiki formatting here is correct, but the lead does not summarize all the main points of the article. At least a sentence should be made in the lead paragraphs to state that the word orange has been significantly noted to have no true rhyme, and that it ultimately derives from a Dravidian language. Apart from that I see no other areas of concern. I will go ahead and add such information to the lead unless someone else takes care of that before me, until then I'm marking this as wait.

2.:
 * (a) ;

Adequate sourcing, books include page numbers, or it is clear by the nature of the book where to find the information.


 * (b) ;

Yes, everything is adequately sourced.


 * (c).

This article appears to have done a good job at not including any original research.

3.:
 * (a) ;
 * The word ultimately derives from a Dravidian language

I highly suspect the reasons for the word orange originating in the middle east/India instead of in Europe to be because the orange fruit existed there before it did in Europe. If someone has made such a connection in a reliable source then that should be added. Any further information/speculation from an RS that can be found on how the word spread from the Middle east/India to Europe should also be covered. Because I'm unsure however if anything has been written about this I'm passing the section. I would appreciate any feedback from any editors here if they believe such information could be found.


 * (b).

No unnecessary details here.

4.. Clearly neutral.

5.. Very stable.

6.:
 * (a) ;

Does not apply.
 * (b).

Perhaps a time line could be made here of relevant dates, or a map showing the movement of the word from India/Middle east to Italy to France and then into English. The article doesn't really appear to need any images however, but if someone comes up with a clever idea to help the reader visualize this information better then that would definitely be a plus. Short of any clear idea for a picture that could be added to enhance the article though I'm marking this as pass.

7. Overall:

All in all some additions to the lead and added clarity on two points should make this a good article. I'll wait for some feedback on a few areas, and some changes, but in general I am happy with the articles structure, sourcing, and content, and believe it will be ready to pass in a week with a few minor changes.

Reviewer: AerobicFox (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)