Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cucurbita/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

Cucurbita

 * Nominator(s): HalfGig, Sminthopsis84, Chiswick Chap

This article, Cucurbita, is about the genus of plants called squash, pumpkin, and/or gourd depending on local parlance. They are native to the Western Hemisphere. The fruits of this genus are an important source of human food and play several roles in human culture. We've enjoyed working on this for over a year and hope you enjoy reading it. There are many people without whom we could not have gotten this article this far; too many of them to list here. HalfGig  talk  00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the tools are reporting it has "Squash (plant)" which is a redirect, but it doesn't. I don't know how to fix this.   HalfGig   talk  00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * looked at this. See this talk page thread.   HalfGig   talk  13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata
Good to finally see this article at FAC! I'll post a full review later, but for now a few comments:
 * I noticed that Linnaeus is briefly mentioned at the start of the "Species" section. May I suggest this sentence be expanded to a short paragraph describing his original circumscription, as well as a brief mention of the synonyms listed in the taxobox (which aren't mentioned elsewhere). Also, you could give a direct link to Linnaeus protolog (link here; page # is 1010, not 2010)
 * We'll work that.   HalfGig   talk  01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice correction to the page number! I've added Genera Plantarum because Species Plantarum needs that for completeness. I wondered about mentioning earlier people, like Tournefort, whom Linnaeus is basically copying from. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good addition, that's pretty much what I envisioned. Sasata (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ref #36 (Kemery 2014) indicates a PDF, but there's no link
 * That's because if you search the title it'll find it but when you click it it instantly gives you a download. I downloaded it and read it but I can't get it to display in a browser. How does one rectify this for the reference? I don't know how.   HalfGig   talk  01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is now ref 38. I added two more refs for this. But can 38 be fixed? Can we keep it or not?   HalfGig   talk  00:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is now ref 39, but I can't find it now so I've replaced it with another university ref.   HalfGig   talk  23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * missing a conversion for "20–35 cm wide"
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is dietary fiber considered a nutrient (lead)?
 * Cut, it's mentioned in the article, so not needed in lead.   HalfGig   talk  01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * missing citations:
 * "Female flowers of C. pepo have a small calyx, but the calyx of C. moschata male flowers is comparatively short."
 * "Cucurbita are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron. They are free of cholesterol."
 * entire paragraph ending with "has significantly different enzymes and chromosomes."
 * This was all the result of copyediting. They all had refs at one point. I dug them up by going through the history of the article.   HalfGig   talk  23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth
An impressive looking article overall. A few points occurred to me:
 * You need to be consistent as to whether you use the full species name or the abbreviated form, Cucurbita pepo or C. pepo.
 * I thought if you spelled it out the first time you could use the short form thereafter. Am I mistaken?   HalfGig   talk  14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about this, but having mentioned the five domesticated species in the lead, I would have thought all subsequent mentions in the rest of the article should be of the shortened form, C. pepo for example. This is not currently the case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil." - The subject of this sentence is "The Cucurbita genus" and I doubt you could extract much oil or anything else from a genus!
 * Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * " The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." - Perhaps this sentence could be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph.
 * Rearranged slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries." - These events are a bit minor for mention in the lead of an article ostensibly about a genus.
 * Made the sentence more general; celebration of the genus is however demonstrably widespread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomy of the genus, as is seen in the number of species listed, which varies from 13 to 30."= This sentence is rather long and rambling.
 * tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein." - this sentence requires some explanation or wikilinking.
 * tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "pollen load" - ditto.
 * tweaked and rearranged a little. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the "History and domestication" section, the first sentence of paragraph 2 has some duplication with the first sentence of paragraph 3.
 * Removed the sentence from para 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would put the "History and domestication" section near the beginning of the article.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)


 * Why are the "Reproductive biology" and "Germination and seedling growth" sections part of the "Description" section?
 * Should they be their own sections or should we make a new section with them as subsections?   HalfGig   talk  14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought separate sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking I can get to this later today.   HalfGig   talk  10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "... the original wild specimen was a small round fruit and that the modern pumpkin is its direct descendant." - Maybe "had" rather than "was".
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Its leaves are 20 to 30 centimeters (7.9 to 11.8 in) wide." -The conversion is a bit over precise.
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Leaves have 3–5 lobes and are 20–35 centimeters (7.9–13.8 in) wide." - Ditto.
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "All the subspecies, varieties, and cultivars are conspecific and interfertile." - Isn't this a tautology?
 * Fixed   HalfGig   talk  03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pumpkins and pumpkin seeds have high levels of crude protein ..." - This might be true of pumpkin seed but I would doubt it is of pumpkin which is 95% water and contains 1.2% protein according to your infobox.
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Because of this bitterness that is especially prevalent in wild Cucurbita, in parts of Mexico the flesh of the fruits is rubbed on a woman's breast to wean children." - This sentence is a bit convoluted.
 * Fixed   HalfGig   talk  03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "... there are occasional reports of cucurbitacin getting into the human food supply and causing illness." - "getting into the human food supply" makes it sound like a contaminant rather than a naturally produced secondary metabolite.
 * Tweaked.   HalfGig   talk  22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Cucurbits, which are all members of the family Cucurbitaceae, ..." - This information seems redundant.
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "For example, cucurbita are often represented in Moche ceramics" - If you use "cucurbita" here it needs to be capitalised and italicised. Otherwise substitute "cucurbits".
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That looks good. Now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (A bit biased) Support (because I worked on it a bit myself) -- comprehensive, well-written, careful... what I expect from a FA.  03:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (GermanJoe)
Both comments are just for information, all images are OK to use within our guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Zapallomuseolarco.jpg - this one gave me trouble (low-resolution image), but I found this archived discussion, confirming communication with the museum. This collection of images from museum exhibits is most likely OK, based on information from the museum, that was relayed via OTRS.
 * File:Cucurbita_pepo_Cocozelle_fruits.jpg - originally from a different website, but the Flickr-uploader seems to maintain the source website as well (AGF) - OK.
 * All other images are clearly CC or PD for various reasons with sufficient source and author information.
 * Thank you very much for your detailed look.   HalfGig   talk  22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Will take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, I have to say I am not a fan of the intro as it stands currently as it comes over a bit stilted. The first sentence leaves me thinking, "a genus of what?" - I'd also wikilink genus here. I think I'd open with, "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to the Andes and Mesoamerica. Five species are widely grown for their edible fruit, variously known as pumpkin, squash or gourd, and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels." or something like this - it just needs to flow better and be more punchy. I am happy to massage it live,
 * Feel free. It has probably had rather too much of the committee treatment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is my attempt at rejigging the lead and making it snappier. Let me know what you think.
 * Looks good. Linked genus. Yes, by all means edit directly as you see fit or post here for us to do it. As for the intro, I've made some changes as you suggest above. Feel free to tweak it or post more suggestions here.   HalfGig   talk  13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe its because I do alot of biology articles but I'd move the History and domestication section down the article to after Habitat and distribution - that way it segues nicely into the cultivated stuff, with nutrients etc. coming after.
 * Done.   HalfGig   talk  13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd put production after History and domestication actually.
 * Done.   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are we comparing production to watermelon production?
 * So that we can see where cucurbit production stands relative to another common fruit food. If this is a faux paus, it can be removed.   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, not sure - I can see the benefits in giving context, so if you guys feel it's useful I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ... is so vast that its various subspecies and cultivars have been misidentified as totally separate species. - needs a ref at the end of the sentence
 * This had a ref. It was lost in editing, so I found it by going through article history and readded it.   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Germination and seedling growth is a subsection of reproductive biology so should be level 3 header.
 * Fixed.   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd expect the distribution and habitat section to have something on the total range, maybe northern and southernmost species and centres of biodiversity of the genus (if possible), not just the few cultivated species
 * Some of this type of information is in history and domestication section, but I also see your point. I've added it. Please review. This info is spelled out in the Nee (1990) article.   HalfGig   talk  15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * why the link to Calabaza at the bottom? If it is one to talk about, then a few notes within the general text is better - the article has only 28 kb of prose so can easily be expanded.
 * Cut   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, am not sure about the Culinary uses section - most of this should be under production above, not human culture, the only exception being the thanksgiving bit which should be moved to festivals.
 * Split per above, please review because I'm not sure I split it precisely as you intended.   HalfGig   talk  15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, I think this split overlooks actual culinary uses, i.e. different foods and recipes, regional or not, made from squashes. These items of daily consumption do not fit into production, nor into (annual) festivals. I suggest we put them back into a smaller Culinary uses section. I'll see if I can find some regional variations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Chiswick here. It's better with a culinary section. However, the paragraph currently at the bottom of production, that was moved out of culinary, which starts "The Cucurbitaceae family has many species used as ....";....I'm split on whether it should stay where it is now or move back to culinary uses.   HalfGig   talk  18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay - I guess I saw human culture as "culture plus symbolism but not including food as such" but if other folks see it as more inclusive that's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * why is Cucumber in see also bit at bottom?
 * Cut   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we know anything about regional variation that can be added to the Culinary uses section? what preparation is done more than others where....
 * As I understood your above comment, there is no culinary uses section now. As I understand your question about preparation, I haven't seen anything in what would be suitable source for a featured level article. I shall look around and post back here if I find anything suitable.    HalfGig   talk  15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some traditional regional variations from India, France and Italy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I think we're in striking distance but still a few issues to clarify. The prose is pretty good, and the comprehensiveness is okay - a few issues there that need to be looked at - but the structure needs some fine-tuning as above. It's a big article and I have to take another look as I am wondering whether there is some more that should be in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was only 6K when I started on it back in Aug 2013.   HalfGig   talk  14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, that's common. Most articles I pick up to buff for FAC grow considerably....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * tentative support - am happy with structure now. Prose is fine. I can't see any glaring gaps in content, hence I can't see any outstanding issues that would bar this article from becoming FA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes
This nom has been open a very long time but my impression is that we might benefit more by seeing this one through than archiving and starting again; that'll depend on how things pan out in the next short while...
 * do you consider all your comments to have been resolved now?
 * Yes, I do. Thanks for asking. CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like we still need a source review for formatting/reliability and a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If none of our reviewers above feel comfortable undertaking either of those I'll try Nikkimaria.
 * There are quite a few duplicate links in the article. Some might be justified by the space between them but pls review in any case -- vine twice in the lead is certainly unnecessary! You can install this script to highlight the duplicates.
 * Oh wow, I didn't know about the dupe link tool. I've fixed them now, except for one that shows up because it is linked in a photo caption and the body. I was told this is okay. Thank you for the tip.   HalfGig   talk  02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * Ref 10 has an error message missing url.
 * Updated reference.   HalfGig   talk  19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd)[3] is a genus of herbaceous vine" I would link herbaceous.
 * Linked.   HalfGig   talk  19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "In 1990, Michael Nee classified them into the following 13 species" There is no explanation of why Nee's scheme is given rather than that of another expert.
 * Nee's system is one of the more recent ones if not the most recent, so it based upon more modern scientific knowledge, he is also a recognized top expert in the Cucurbita field, with his 1990 work being oft-cited. I've added a bit and ref about this.    HalfGig   talk  19:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "this pollination requires proper technique." proper does not seem the right word - expert?
 * Changed to "skilled", ok?.   HalfGig   talk  19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The most critical factors in flowering and fruit set are physiological rather than climatic." I do not understand this. It is stated above that most species require almost continuous water and others tolerate dry conditions. These are climatic factors.
 * Good point. In fact, the cited paper says very little about climatic factors, although they are mentioned in the abstract. I've removed that and clarified what the physiological factors are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Evidence of Cucurbita being domesticated has been found in early archaeological records of native peoples" This seems to say that early native peoples kept archaeological records.
 * I've linked that to Archaeological record, which refers to a body of evidence..." It is what archaeologists have learned from the artifacts they have documented. ". Is this okay or do you have an alternate wording?   HalfGig   talk  19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is better not to refer to the "archaeological record" as it is a controversial theoretical concept. Perhaps something like "Archaeological investigations have found evidence of domestication of Cucurbita going back over 8,000 years."
 * Changed.   HalfGig   talk  12:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Evolutionarily speaking, the genus is relatively recent in origin" This is vague. 100,000s of years? Millions? If it was in Mexico and more than 3 million years old it presumably originates in the north American continent before it joined up with south America.
 * Only thousands for the genus, compared to millions for the family. I've added to this effect in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply above and further points.
 * The comment about Lagenaria siceraria is a bit obscure. I assume it is no longer regarded as a Cucurbita species, but this is not clear.
 * reworked this sentence. That and Citrullus lanatus are not Cucurbita but are in the same family as Cucurbita, Cucurbitaceae.   HalfGig   talk  12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Later, more accurate, dating using accelerator mass spectrometers provided more specific dates." What dates? Is 10,000 now ruled out?
 * It seems so, see the Kubitzki ref and quote. I've changed the 8-10,000 to 'at least 8,000' which fits these sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure the 10000yr mark is gone. So I agree Chiswick's wording is better. I also removed the mass spectrometer sentence. It's not necessary. I thought of rewording it but decided not to.   HalfGig   talk  12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Although the stems and skins tend to be bitterer than the flesh" Is bitterer a word? I would prefer more bitter.
 * Changed. FYI, according to two online dictionaries 'bitterer' is a word.   HalfGig   talk  12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The only countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native are Cuba, which ranks 14th with 347,082 metric tons, and Argentina, which ranks 17th, with 326,900 metric tons. But it is also native to Mexico which is 7th.
 * Good catch. I added the word "additional", which I'd meant to do way back whenever.   HalfGig   talk  12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cucurbits are susceptible to diseases such as bacterial wilt" Cucurbits is piped to Cucurbitaceae. It seems confusing to introduce a new piped synonym for the tribe so late in the article.
 * I added " also cucurbits," into the lede.   HalfGig   talk  12:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would link xerophytic.
 * That was linked. I must have undone it a few days ago when I was cleaning up duplicate links.   HalfGig   talk  12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. BTW I think there is an error in the Kubitzki source quoted above. 65MA is the beginning of the Paleocene, long before the Paleocene/Eocene transition and London Clay. Maybe he means 56MA. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. And yes, I think that's what he was referring to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Source check
I have spotchecked the sources, examining all those ending in "2". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 (Tropicos) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 12 (Worldbotanical) - "Musaceae" is mentioned in the source as another example of use of the word "pepo".
 * I think it's best to leave as is, see Musaceae, not even same family.   HalfGig   talk  22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 22 (Robinson) - This source hardly supports the statement and could be removed as #21 does do so.
 * Moved to a better spot, two in fact.   HalfGig   talk  22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 32 (Sanjur) - This source supports the cladogram.
 * 42 (Pimenta) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 52 (Holotype) - This source supports the statement it cites but I think "Triloba" should be in italics and not capitalised. This also applies to "Zapallito" and "Zipinka" and the relevant citations need rationalising. I'm not sure about the other varieties as I do not have access to #55.
 * Fixed as I understand what you said.   HalfGig   talk  22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 62 (Paris) - As far as I can see, this difficult to read, multi-used source fully supports the statements cited.
 * Yes, it's a key source, he's a cucurbit specialist.  HalfGig   talk  22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 72 (Roberts) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 82 (Cutler) - I do not have access to this source.
 * 92 - (University of Illinois) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 102 (Tallamy) - This source supports the two statements it cites.
 * 112 (Havelda) - This source does not support the statement it cites as far as I can see. But there are four citations and other sources may support the statement.
 * It's in ref 113.   HalfGig   talk  22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 122 (Janick) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 132 (Bean) - I do not have access to this source.
 * 142 (Jaffrey) - I do not have access to this source.
 * 152 (Tra Meno) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 162 (Festival) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * 172 (Kew) - This source supports the statement it cites.
 * In general, I found no instances of close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the sources I inspected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of the ones that have issues, I will fix them in a few hours. The issues are likely the result of massive copyediting and structure realignments that have gone on with this article.   HalfGig   talk  19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Some ref numbers changed when I worked this.   HalfGig   talk  22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE 2: Cwmhiraeth had already supported the article up above in this FAC and her on her talk page at User_talk:Cwmhiraeth she says that all concerns in here in her source\paraphrase check have been met.   HalfGig   talk  11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources (formatting / reliability) - OK
Aside from the first minor cleanup point, no problems found with citations. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some references need Template:subscription required, one needs Template:registration required tags. The "External links" tool in the FAC toolbox shows a list of results. Some of those templates can possibly be replaced with actual cite parameters, see the templates' documentation for more info.
 * OK, I ran this tool and added the tags to the ones it found.   HalfGig   talk  17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed a few minor issues with order of references - OK.
 * References are consistently formatted, the article is well-referenced throughout.
 * All sources covering scientific information are academic publications and/or written by topic experts.
 * I can't really judge the scientific details. Several extensive reviews have already combed through the article (see above), all raised points have been addressed.
 * Some references in "Festivals" are a bit more lightweight, but still OK for a folklore section with mostly uncontroversial festival info.
 * Thank you for this input.  HalfGig   talk  17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a quick fix, thank you. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: GermanJoe has crossed out the image, source, and paraphrasing requests at WT:FAC. This makes two people who have source and paraphrase checks. Thank you!   HalfGig   talk  13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.