Talk:Vanilla/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vanilla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:


 * The lead is too short. Please expand it to at least three paragraphs or so per WP:LEAD.
 * Web references should be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include access date and publisher information.
 * here is a "dubious" tag in the article.
 * A significant amount of information goes unreferenced per WP:CITE, including but not limited to:
 * Most of the "Vanilla orchid" section
 * Second and second-last paragraph of the " History" section
 * Second paragraph of the " Chemistry" section
 * Second paragraph of the "General production guidelines" section
 * Second paragraph of the "Pest and disease management" section
 * From the third to the last points in the "Stages of production" section
 * And so on
 * Several references are placed improperly; there should be no spaces between punctuation marks and references. For example, "vine.[16] [17] In" should be "vine.[16][17] In"

Once these issues have been resolved, please ensure that the article meets the Good article criteria laid out at WP:GA? and then renominate it. Gary King ( talk ) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please restore the spelling dialect per WP:ENGVAR, so that I do not have to do it a second time in one day. The article uses British English, the dialect it was started with. VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't have to change it in the first place, there was a smattering of both dialects throughout the article before I started editing. I was correcting this as I edited, choosing the American English dialect as I am American; then you came along and changed all the American English to British English and undid the changes I had begun.


 * Additionally, the sources I have located, as well as most of the ones already in place, use the American dialect. I wish to keep everything standardized. That is why I started using the American dialect. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC), amended 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:ENGVAR? I prefer using American (being one), but this article uses British (please see the first edit).  I will change it back when I have some time later today. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I have, specifically this part:
 * "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor."


 * While the initial entry was in British English, it was a stub. The first major contributor Peter G Werner used American English. Before that point there was no preferences, and it was a hodge-podge of both. One other contributor that made any significant contributions was Anskrev only made layout changes. Peter G. Warner is the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety. Additionally, there are no major national ties binding a particular version of English to the article. The closest would be Mexico where vanilla originated; when using English, Mexico tends to use American English predominantly (Translations, etc).


 * --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been monitoring this article for WP:ENGVAR since 5/10/07 when I found one word with American spelling. I made additional WP:ENGVAR edits on 6/13/07, 6/30/07, 7/17/07, 12/8/07, 1/23/08 and 3/12/08.  Unfortunately I missed the edit on 5/26/08 where some American spellings were introduced (another editor corrected some of the spellings which is why I probably missed the rest).  If I had not missed those edits, you would have found an article with no American spellings when you started your GA editing.


 * If I hadn't screwed up, you would have no reason to change the spelling. Per WP:MOS "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from American to British spellings unless the article concerns a British topic."  The subsections of WP:ENGVAR are for use when an article is found without a consistent style which this article would have had except for my mistake. Going back in the history to find an excuse to change the current style is not a valid use of WP:ENGVAR.  If you want to take advantage of a recent editing mistake on my part, then I will not continue to argue the issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)