Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of culinary nuts/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012.

List of culinary nuts

 * Nominator(s): Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after rewriting it to bring it up to FL quality. This is part of an effort to contribute more articles to the Food & Drink FL category. Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is too far from my comfort zone to give an in depth review, but to my opinion you should avoid abbreviations. Not everybody is familiar with the latin names. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean in the sublists, like F. grandifolia under Beech Fagus spp.? Waitak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I mean. Abbreviation can make a sentence unreadable or confusing. Night of the Big Wind  talk  03:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the abbreviations, they seem easy enough to "decode", and I'm not coming from the point of view of a scientist. It can be practically useful to know the name Fagus grandifolia. Gzuufy (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to do here. I personally prefer them, but I just removed them in response to Night of the Big Wind's comment. I've put in a request over at WikiProject Plants for clarification. Given that there's some question, I'll revert the changes I just made and wait until someone more knowledgeable provides some feedback. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The feedback from WikiProject Plants is that the standard guideline is to abbreviate the genus in situations like this one. That said, if the consensus is to spell them out, I'm happy to do that. Waitak (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the page is valuable and well done. I found the thorough list of tropical nuts very interesting! WP:Plants knows best, I guess, but it seems to me spelling out those names would be helpful for the lay reader not familiar with the genus abbreviation convention. Either way, I support the nomination, but I'm not as experienced as others at evaluating featured article criteria. Araucana (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I've unabbreviated all of the genus names. Waitak (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The table is a little bit disturbing or even distracting; could you make it horizontal?-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've converted it to a bar chart. Is that better? I have no objection to losing the production section altogether if it doesn't seem to fit the article. Waitak (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind the format, but having it in the lead I do find problematic. It should be in a section of its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved to its own section, and added a list of which countries produce the major nuts (because having the chart alone in a section looked a bit sparse). I've wikilinked all of the country names in the list, creating a bit of a sea of blue. Is that okay? Waitak (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's even better! Thanks ♫GoP♫ T C N 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll endeavor to review properly later in the week. My opening observations are that the major peanut-producing countries aren't listed, but that the list otherwise contains what I'd expect. —WFC— 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Done
 * Good spot. Fixed it. Waitak (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Everything looks in order just one thing I noticed, you need to  to the refs that are PDF's. NapHit (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Done


 * Fixed! Waitak (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede is a bit short on wikilinks. Maybe it's just me, but I sort of expect several words in the first sentence to be linked - "culinary nuts", "fruits", "seeds".  Don't know if it's necessary, but it struck me as something that was missing. Done
 * The "peanut" wikilink is missing a closing "]" Done
 * I would move the "Production" section to the end. Done
 * Could I ask others following this review for an opinion on moving the Production section? Waitak (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any opinions to the contrary, I've moved the Production section to the end as SatyrTN requested. Waitak (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Does not satisfy criterion 3a. I'm willing to assume that "all of the major items" are present, but the additional information provided is insufficient. From a featured list, I expect more than the item's name and a random fact. Also, I think the list would benefit from using tables instead of bullet points.  Good raise  19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize the entries as just "a random fact". The entries give information about where the nut is grown, what they're used for and (where appropriate) how long they have been used in a culinary role. I would have thought that that's sufficient to satisfy the criterion ("where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items"). In any case, I'm in the process of adding more on culinary usage as WFC suggested. I can go through them and see if there's anything else that seems appropriate to add. Is there anything else in particular that you'd like to see? Waitak (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the facts are chosen at random, making them random facts. I see nothing unfair about calling them that. What I'm objecting to is nothing in the article, it's what isn't in the article. I'd like to see a table of culinary nuts sortable by name, scientific name, place of origin, length of history as a culinary nut, amount of annual worldwide production, name of the plant producing the nut, with a column for pictures of the nuts and another for additional annotations. Though, if that, or something similar, is unfeasible for some reason, I may reconsider my opposition.  Good raise  22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The way that the entries were written was by looking at the best sources available, for each nut, and summarizing what the sources recorded as the most key facts about them. The concern was to faithfully reflect the source, and to trust what they chose as most important to mention. The list is modeled after FL List of vegetable oils, and was rewritten from an earlier (and, IMHO, very poor) table-based list. The problem was that the individual nuts are sufficiently different in role, history and origin that a table design did a poor job of helping the reader learn about the nuts and, more particularly, about the groups of nuts, as they're reflected in the article. As an example, world-wide production is available for only a small portion of the nuts in the list. By adding a column in a table, we'd effectively be spending a significant amount of screen real estate just to make the point that don't have that information. All in all, I thought that the bullet-point based list was a better fit to the available information. Waitak (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support. I've given Goodraise's comments serious thought. The two main issues are whether this would be better presented as a table (criteria 4, and 5a I suppose), and – given that it is appropriate to annotate – whether all entries are accompanied by useful and appropriate information (3a). Subject to my comments below, I'm satisfied that it meets 3a. All entries contain the nut's scientific name where different to common name, and before I support they will all have relevant information on their use as food. The table I considered more carefully. I concluded that length of history as a culinary nut or amount of annual worldwide production are unlikely to be known for many nuts, and that having a column for the plant name is often pointless, as in many cases the scientific name and the name of the plant are interchangeable. I agree that each entry should ideally have a geographic element to it, but think prose is a more flexible way of doing this than a table column. For some nuts the true "origin" won't be known. For others, an origin it might give a misleading picture of modern-day production (English walnut for example). The specific outstanding things that concern me are: Once these are resolved I will fully support. Sorry again for taking so long. —WFC— 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I prefer the bulleted list. -- ♫GoP♫ T C N 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – I, for one, have no issue with the present format of the page, and wonder if some of the information proposed to be added is even avaliable. To me, this meets the FL criteria, and that's all I can ask for. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The entries for Almonds, Cashews, Pistachio, Mockernut hickory are not specific enough about culinary use. I did find additional instances of parent/sub nuts lacking detail, but this is fine because the sub nuts/parent nut had good descriptions.
 * The claim that "vast majority of soybean production is not for use as nuts" needs an inline citation. If you have a suitable ref but aren't sure how to cite a footnote with an inline citation, ping me on my talk page and I'll make the edit.
 * I think every nut should be accompanied by some sort of geographic information (one of where they come from, are eaten, are produced etc). What needs to be be said will vary from nut to nut, so I'll leave it down to your discretion. The following nuts are the ones I think need something geographic to be added: Filbert, Malabar chestnut, Almonds, cashews, Mockernut hickory, Shellbark hickory, Jacknuts, Stone pine, soybeans.


 * This is what I love about the WP review process. Having several people, over a period of time (okay, maybe not quite this long a period of time, but fine) contributing thoughtful suggestions on how an article can be improved leads to articles of a quality that no one author would have attained by his or her sole effort. I'll have at it over the next day or two, and hopefully we'll be able to put this to bed and move on to the next food and beverage related FLC. Waitak (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have limited WP time over the next week or so, but am looking forward to addressing each of these points when I surface. Thanks again for the review. Waitak (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Good work. I found the bullet point approach to be perfectly fine. I'm not sure tables would be a good idea for this one. GRAPPLE   X  03:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.