Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wheat/archive1

Wheat
Seems to be a well-written and well-researched article, with plenty of supporting references. It's undoubtedly a topic of global interest and deserves to be Featured. --Lost tourist 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC) At the current status, it does not deserve to be featured. :&mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Object: the article is not yet ready for FA.
 * The History section is still vague, no exact year is given.
 * The Genetics and breedings section is hard to understand. It really confuse me, as a layman reader. Please use more understandable jargons, rather than diploid, tetraploid and any kind of ploids that really does not contribute to the subject. It does not tell me that wheat genetics is complicated, only the explanation itself complicates me.
 * Again the next section is not helpful to me to understand what wheat is. For instances, in the following sentence: This more primitive morphology consists of toughened glumes that tightly enclose the grains, and (in domesticated wheats) a semi-brittle rachis that breaks easily on threshing. The result is that when threshed, the wheat ear breaks up into spikelets. It contains many unexplained jargons (in red color).
 * In this two sentences: There are many taxonomic classification systems used for wheat species, discussed in a separate article on Wheat taxonomy. It is good to keep in mind that the name of a wheat species from one information source may not be the name of a wheat species in another. It's not a good way of telling the reader what the wheat taxonomy is. Why do you need to say that there are different taxonomy? Which one is the correct one? How can I trust this article then?
 * Drop the Cost and returns section. This is not a wheat marketing report. This is an encylopaedia.
 * The Production and consumption statistics is very stubby.
 * Why should be there a special section for United States?
 * Object per Indon. Stubby sections, images missing captions, non-formatted sections, POV, plenty WP:MOS/WP:FN issues, non-referenced sections and numbers. I suggest withdrawing this FAC and referring to peer review instead.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is a separate section of wheat in the United States doing there? deeptrivia (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly the article itself should answer that question, but also for China and India--largest wheat producing nations, US has greatest diversity, or did at one time. But since the article doesn't say a word about why the US has a separate section.... KP Botany 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps too many images. Do we need two images of combining wheat?  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree- I think a dozen images of wheat, especially considering the length of the article, is a bit superfluous. -- Kicking222 19:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are too many images, as the images show something, there just isn't enough and appropriate text for the images, and without captions, some are pointless. KP Botany 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Object This is not even a good article by the loosest of standards.  There are multiple comments necessary about almost every sentence of this article.  It simply needs withdrawn for now.  Post on WP:WikiProject Plants and ask for help developing the article, then put it through Plants Peer Review, then bring it back here.  KP Botany 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)