Talk:Rice-fish system/GA1

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

Nominator: 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 05:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article on a topic that is covered quite extensively in academic literature but may not be so well-known in popular culture outside Asia. A cursory glance shows it is likely to be near to meeting the Good article criteria but I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an honour and a privilege. simongraham (talk)

Comments

 * Overall, the standard is high.
 * Thank you.
 * It is of sufficient length, with 1,455 words of readable prose.
 * Noted.
 * The lead is short, but reasonable given the length of the article, at 123 words.
 * Noted.
 * 44.6% of authorship is by C.kootstra (in 2018) and 28% by Chiswick Chap (in 2024), with contributions from 25 other editors.
 * Noted.
 * It is currently assessed as a B class article.
 * Noted.


 * Please join the paragraphs with one sentence to other paragraphs as MOS:PARA. Suggest also combining the lead as one paragraph and also other short paragraphs like the one starting "It is possible that the practice" following the same argument.
 * Done.


 * The subsections in Benefits and Applications are very short. If you do not want to reduce them, recommend expanding the content. For example, in Environmental, there are a number of vague phrases like "biodiversity is increased" and "can reduce methane emissions" for which clarifying facts can be added. A cursory search on Google Scholar found multiple articles on both. This also ensures the article is broad in its coverage.
 * Added on biodiversity, inputs, methane.
 * That is a lot better. Thank you.
 * The section on methane emissions mentions "global warming" and then there is a separate "Climate change" section later. Please name these consistently and wikilink the first instance. My reading of the climate change style guide is that the preference is for "climate change". In addition, the second instance seems to be more about climate adaptation or resilience than climate change. Suggest this is worth clarifying. There are a number of 2024 publications on the topic, e.g. Lu, Goswami et al, Chang et al and Freed et al, which may be helpful.
 * The phrase "global warming" isn't in the article. Climate change is already wikilinked. Tweaked the section heading to 'Climate resilience'.
 * Added a bit from Goswami, etc. The diminishing returns suggest we have the main points covered.


 * Spot checks confirm Gurung & Wagle 1970 (the reference has them reversed), Khumairoh et al 2018 and Xie et al 2011 discuss the topic. However, it is difficult to truly assess the sources as most footnotes lack specific page numbers. Suggest following the format of Halwart & Gupta 2004 for consistency.
 * Gurung and Wagle it is. All references are to page, chapter, or research article.
 * Thank you. I sometimes think it would be helpful to have an agreed standard for referencing.
 * I provide full cite book / cite journal templates.


 * A scan of the sources in Semantic Scholar identified that many more recent articles have been written. Although not strictly a GA criteria, I suggest looking at some of these may also ensure the information is current.
 * Noted.


 * Earwig reports a 26.5% chance of copyright violation which is "unlikely". The highest similarity is with a chapter by Renkui, Dashu, and Jianguo in a book on the culture edited by Kenneth T. Mackay. The chapter is cited but the editor is not given in the reference. The rest of the book may also prove a useful resource.
 * Most of the overlap noted by Earwig is in simple phrases like "fish per hectare", along with one explicit quotation and a list of carp species. Cited the editor.


 * Mention is made of other animals (crayfish, ducks etc) as alternatives to fish twice in the body and once in See also. Suggest this is kept to a single comment in an appropriate section near the end to keep focused on the topic. The wider rice-animal topic could be a completely new article; there seems to be definitely sufficient scholarly literature to justify it.
 * Done, and yes, there is scope for a parent article.
 * Thank you. If you produce one and nominate it for GA, I would be interested in reviewing.


 * There are a number of bare statements that need clarifying. For example, the article states that "About 80 Chinese rice-fish experts were sent to underdeveloped countries" but does not state when or demonstrate why this is a necessary detail.
 * Added date, I think the paragraph is clear enough otherwise.
 * I think this has been removed by a further edit. Can you take a look please.
 * No, the paragraph now begins "In the 2010s, ..."


 * The section "Rice-fish mutualism" repeats ideas in the preceding section. Recommend reworking the sections to avoid duplication and help the flow.
 * Done.


 * I believe harm is singular in "The reduction in chemical inputs may reduce environmental harms caused by their release into the environment."
 * Done. Can be either.
 * That is good to know.


 * Please make the plural of "fish" consistent.
 * "Fish" is used throughout.


 * Please add conversions for the measures that lack them following MOS:CONVERSIONS, including "6.7 tons to 7.5 tons" and "10,000 hectares", and add consistency (either metric, US or imperial first)
 * Let me push back here. The conversion gives something of the form "6.7 to 7.5 tonnes (6.6 to 7.4 long tons; 7.4 to 8.3 short tons)". You can see that the result is extremely verbose; it is also uninformative, as all three kinds of ton(ne) are pretty similar. Further, we would properly be converting t/ha to two types of tons/acre, not even sure how we'd do that, or what readers would think. The goal is clarity, not confusion in a blizzard of similar numbers. In short we're much better off without. On your second point, I've checked and we always seem to have metric first, which is my standard approach.
 * I understand the concern. The previous section uses the form "4.5–5.25 tonnes per hectare (2.0–2.3 short ton/acre)". While I personally dislike the dash, this may be helpful. simongraham (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Long live the day we bury the rods, poles, fortnights and pounds/square inch along with all the other wimples and habergeons.
 * I think the vast majority would agree. Unfortunately it may be the most recent version of the article has not been saved as the current version lacks the conversion for the 10,000 hectares. Can you look into that please.
 * Fixed.


 * There are a few phrases that I recommend be rephrased for grammar and clarity:
 * "with texts written during 900 AD during the Tang dynasty"
 * Fixed.
 * "relationship between rice and fish, and therefore reduce the food production"
 * Fixed.
 * "The aquatic diversity in rice-fish systems includes plankton (both phytoplankton and zooplankton), soil benthic fauna and microbial populations that all play a role in the enhanced soil fertility and the sustainability of production."
 * Fixed.
 * "grazing from the fish"
 * Fixed.
 * "Rice-crayfish systems have lower abundance and diversity"
 * Fixed.
 * "landscapes created by rice-fish systems form a possible tourist attraction, as it creates a distinctive landscape."
 * Fixed.


 * If it is possible, replace "It is possible", "It appears" "can be considered" "should be" etc with more accurate statements to conform to MOS:AWW.
 * Done.
 * Thank you.


 * Also please check *"Predatory birds can be considered a threat: adding nets to the rice fields can prevent these birds from eating the wanted fish" conforms to MOS:COLON.
 * Edited.


 * The following are duplicate links: China, FAO, hectares, mutualism (as in mutualistic relationship), plankton rice fields, Thailand,
 * Removed links using tool.


 * The images seem relevant and have appropriate CC tags.
 * Noted.

Excellent work on this. Please do take a look at my comments and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've responded to all the comments to date. See what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That sounds excellent. Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * all done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. I will start my review 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.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)