Talk:SweeTango/GA2

GA Review 2
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * See WP:LEADCITE. The citations should be in the prose, not in the lead.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There's information in the lead here that's not in the rest of the article. For instance: Lenticels, the color, a lot of the historical information.  If it's in the lead and not in the article, it should be in the article.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Taste
 * This section is completely uncited.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Availability
 * Spell out United States, not US, see MOS:US.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Consider combining this section and the taste section into a new section title Traits
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any growing characteristics known? Technically this is a product article, but it's really about a plant, so there should be some information like when pollination occurs, etc.  The appearance stuff would also belong here.  Same would be anything with virus/bugs/etc, such as the russetting.

Infobox ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox states that it has its origins in 2008, but the rest of the article tends to indicate 2000.

History ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC) ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC) ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The history section should probably be the first section of the body.
 * This needs updated. Anything new happen after 2013?
 * There's a lot of history stuff in the lead that belong in the body, but is not mentioned in the body.

Exclusive control ✅ - changed section to 'Background'
 * Consider merging this into the history section.

✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Pepin Heights established a 45-member grower's cooperative (47 as of 2011) named Next Big Thing." - Duplicate of content in the previous section

✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The numbers are to be increased to 3,000 trees per orchard, and 150,000 per state, in 2017" - This is in a tense indicating that this is a future event. It happened three years ago.

✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really thinking there's newer information here that could be used to update.

✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The fruit of 'Minneiska' ripen approximately two to three weeks earlier than 'Honeycrisp' ." - Extra space before the period

✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "It further says of the new apple variety "Minneiska was selected for its unique combination of fruit traits. Of particular importance is its early ripening season, its very crisp and juicy texture, and its unusually long storage life for an early ripening variety."

The main feature distinguishing 'Minneiska' from other early ripening varieties known to the inventor is the longer time its fruit can be stored with little change in texture or flavor." - These two paragraphs are kinda cited to the patent, but we still need an inline. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The applicants filing the patent for 'Minneiska' claim their fruit have double the storage life in refrigeration compared to three other early season varieties." - If this claim has ever been independently tested, that's worth mentioning.

Images ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has 851 words, per the prose checker tool. Excluding the logo in the infobox, it has 19 images.  That's 851/19= one image per about 45 words.  Given the length of the article, I think there's really only room for two images.

References ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 needs an access date = ✅
 * Ref 3 - omit "Twincities.com – Pioneer Press" = ✅
 * Ref 6 needs an accessdate = ✅
 * Ref 10 redirects to the home page = ✅
 * Date appears to be wrong for ref 16 = ✅
 * Ref 17 give the full date of November 4, 2011, not just the month/year = ✅
 * Ref 18 links to a homepage = ✅
 * Ref 20, the citation is wrong. Cite the patent itself.  The author is the author of the patent.  The date is the date of the patent.  etc. = ✅
 * I'm concerned by the reliance on primary sources. The University of Minnesota hold the patent on the apple, so U of M is a primary source. The press releases are primary sources.  Sweetango.com is a primary source.  The patent is a primary source.  If Stemilt Growers grows Honeycrisp, which is what it's cited for, it's a primary source.  There's just too much reliance on primary sources. = ✅

I'm sorry Doug, but this is another quickfail. It's sad to see you've been getting a lot of them lately. There's uncited text in here, the references have formatting issues, there's too much reliance on primary sources, too many images, the layout needs work, the article is out of date, and I'm not convinced the article is complete. The lead is not close to the current MOS standards for the lead. I haven't given it a fine-toothed comb on prose, just because there are other issues that take priority. I hate to fail it, but this needs substantial work yet. If you have any questions about how to improve this, I'm willing to try to answer them. Hog Farm Bacon 00:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the full and complete review AND your opinion. You are an outstanding editor with a good knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia and what a Good Article should be, so I respect your opinions. It looks like I have a lot of work to do on this. That should keep me busy for the next couple of months working on your suggestions. I going to try to do all that you have suggested, because I know these are good suggestions that are correct to bring the article up to Good Article standards. I'll be working on this in between projects, so I'll be doing these improvements for the next couple of months. If I get stumped someplace, I'll drop you a note and ask you for some help (thanks for offering).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all the issues you brought up on the above review and corrected them accordingly. Do you see anywhere I can improve the article, to make sure it meets Good Article standards? After I have everything done, then I plan on resubmitting GAN. Thanks for your help (AND the great review you did here).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to nominate the article for Good Article again in a couple of days. Do you see right off hand where I can make any additional improvements to make sure it meets Good Article standards. Thanks for any help you can provide.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - Unless you can provide a rating for SweeTango, I'd recommend removing "The crunchiness of an apple has come down to a science that is measured by an electronic instrument developed in 2011 called a penetrometer that measures with accuracy the crispness of an apple". I've also been making some fairly bold copy edits, too.  Revert or revise any of them that you disagree with.

Further ideas:
 * "They in turn established a 45-member grower's cooperative named Next Big Thing of commercial growers originally only in the state of Minnesota" - It's unclear if "they" is U of M or Pepin Heights
 * "In 2005, the university sold the exclusive marketing rights to the new variety to Pepin Heights Orchards of Lake City, Minnesota" - You don't need to have the formal introdcution of Pepin Heights here, as the group is already introduced in the previous paragraph.
 * "It was decided in a 2012 ruling that the agreement was legal, and that “Minnesota’s antitrust and monopoly laws do not apply to its land-grant university”" - Which court decided this?
 * "The University's fruit-breeding program has produced a new variety of apple in 2014 called the Frostbite and is working on future commercial styles to rival the SweeTango and Frostbite" - Any update on this?

All in all, this is a pretty sound article right now. I feel like I've been involved in the article enough that I'm too involved to do the next GANR, so the reviewer may have other comments. I think most of the biggest issues have been worked out, though. Great job on this one! Hog Farm Bacon 17:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I was the person who downgraded this article from GA the first time. I'm sorry, Doug Coldwell, you just got a bad reviewer at the time. I'm happy to say it looks much better now. Here's something I remember reading about this apple two years ago, something about the breeder might be nice to add. Cheers and good work, Leo Breman (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)