Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:08, 31 January 2008.

Apple


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very comprehensive important historical, botanical, religious, and agricultural topic which relates to nutrition, health and many areas as well.This might interest a great number of Main Page readers because of its universality...A very suitable candidate in my opinion. Thanks. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are articles allowed to be up for GA and FA at the same time? Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No WP policy against that. :) &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC, and remove one or the other.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Lots of uncited statements which could be challenged:
 * Example: "Some individual M. sieversii, recently planted by the US government at a research facility, resist many diseases and pests that affect domestic apples"

Some unsourced speculation:
 * Example: "They may also help with heart disease, weight loss and controlling cholesterol"

Other unencyclopaedic language:
 * Example: "with crabapples or unusually hardy apples in order to produce hardier cultivars"

Guest9999 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feed back, This topic is unlikely to be accused of having many POV statements, and many paragraphs are sourced. The ones you have mentioned are sourced now, and I had to rephrases some to become more encyclopedic. If you have more comments, please post them. Thanks to all. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job fixing the points mentioned, however I think there are a few more problems. The article is a Good Article nominee and I think success there would probably be a good first step before featured article status. Obviously others are free to disagree and I will try to point out more things that could be improved pending further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note; articles cannot simultaneously be listed at WP:GAC and WP:FAC. Please remove one or the other.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The instruction[s] on this page say: "Graphics ( Done or Not done) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time."--Kiyarr lls ton 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input is much appreciated. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note; To comply with WP guidelines, I decided to withdraw the article's GA nomination. I realize that by doing so, I am taking a risky step, but I believe that the article is ready for FA.
 * The links to references 10 and 19 (and possibly 3) appear to be dead, something is wrong with the formatting of 14. Guest9999 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will fix that. Thanks! &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed them all except number 3. I am still trying to figure out the best way to solve it. Some links were simply outdated, and one was vandalism. I fixed them now. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, good job, I hope you don't mind if I point out a few more potential issues. Guest9999 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Although most cultivars are bred for eating fresh (dessert apples), some are cultivated specifically for cooking (cooking apples) or producing cider. Cider apples are typically too tart and astringent to eat fresh (possible NPOV issue without source), but they give the beverage a rich flavour that dessert apples cannot. (possible NPOV issue without source) "
 * "Many of them have excellent flavour (often better than most modern cultivars)" - is this sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph? It sounds quite POV. Guest9999 (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of paragraphs that could possibly do with referencing:

and

"Modern apples are, as a rule (possible unencyclopaeic language), sweeter than older cultivars. Most North Americans and Europeans favour sweet, subacid apples, but tart apples have a strong minority following. Extremely sweet apples with barely any acid flavour are popular in Asia and especially India."
 * Guest9999 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Nearly all commercial orchards" - some kind of sourced figure or statistic might be better, nearly all seems a bit subjective. Also is there sourcing for the table of nutritional values? Guest9999 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixing I am working on them right now. I have rephrased, removed, added, sourced many paragraphs to fix the issues, and the nutritional value's table reference is found here . Guest9999, You are a great reviewer ! Thanks!  &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. I would however note that I am not very experienced in this area of Wikipedia. I do not know whether other users will agree with the comments I've been making. Guest9999 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed All issues reported by Guest9999 have been addressed and fixed. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Position of Kiyarr lls ton: Oppose - hmmm... I think it is the best article on a fruit so far -Query has any fruit article made it to FA yet? --Kiyarr lls ton 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [done]"Apples as Food" - wouldn't "Human consumption" be a more encyclopedic title?
 * [done]"Origin and history of cultivation" -wouldn't simply "History" be better?
 * [done]" Different cultivars of apples have a distinct different taste, and this can be separated into two separate factors of flavour and texture ." is the first sentence of "Apples as food", and it does not in any way serve as an introduction to that section, besides lacking any sort of context.
 * [still in human consumption] "See also: List of Lepidoptera that feed on apple trees" perhaps fits better in "Botanical information"? it regards a biological "ecosystem" where the rest is about human consumption
 * First issue addressed; "Apples as Food" to "Human consumption"
 * Second issue addressed; "Origin and history of cultivation" to "History"
 * Third issue addressed; removed phrase lacking context
 * Fourth issue addressed; "See also: List of Lepidoptera that feed on apple trees" moved to "Botanical information".
 * Thanks for the feed back. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding :D --Kiyarr lls ton 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the article, as I understand it. I do not believe that happens in the current article. In fact I believe the lead contains information not in the body - this is highly irregular but I don't know what rule it goes against.

"most varieties of apple can be stored for approximately two weeks, when kept at the coolest part of the refrigerator" - reading the source it mentions a temperature of below 5°C - something like "when refrigerated at below 5°C" might be a clearer standard to use. Guest9999 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another small thing:


 * Please resolve external links. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the lead does not meet WP:LEAD, in that it only briefly describes the tree and fruit. It doesn't have any information from Apple cultivars, Growing apples, Commerce, Human consumption, Health benefits, Cultural aspects or Storage. The Commerce section is very stubby - perhaps it should be merged into Human consumption? -Malkinann (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

&Fixed The external links have been fixed. Regards. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed Hopefully the lead now complies with WP:LEAD, I was reluctant to remove the info already there, because this is the kind of thing a real encyclopedia would show Not in any way suggesting that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia :) I just added a small paragraph. Also, I took Guest9999 comment and added it rather than rephrasing the sentence since we will lose an important piece of info if we did that.  &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw a list of FA, but I did not see a fruit under "Food and drink", I might be wrong but I believe this might be the first FA on a fruit!  &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has garnered no support in eight days at FAC, so I'm closing; I will list some things to address before re-approaching FAC.

I suggest a comparison to the featured article saffron for comprehensiveness, addressing all of the issues raised, and re-approaching peer review before re-submitting to FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:GTL, see also, further, etc. templates belong at the top of sections.
 * MOS:CAPS, reduce all caps in citations.
 * Extensive cleanup is needed in citations: there are missing publishers, unnecessary parameters English and htm (Controlled Atmosphere Storage (CA) (htm) (English). Retrieved on 24 January 2008. ), incomplete information (who is Mark? Mark. ORIGIN, HISTORY OF CULTIVATION (.htm) (English). Retrieved on 22, 2008. Retrieved on January 2008.) as examples.
 * Unformatted entry in External links.
 * See also needs pruning: in a comprehensive featured article, most see also entries are incorporated into the text, and see also should be minimized (see WP:GTL).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.