Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/3

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article contains a lot of unaddressed citation needed tags, thus failing criterion 1b, which requires citations for statistics and challenged material. I will wait a week before closing this reassessment so editors can have the opportunity to fix these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Only 5 citation tags in a 60+ kb article. A bit too harsh, aren't we?
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can work on this: the cn tags won't be that hard to address. It may take me a few days though, as this is a holiday weekend in the US. Dana boomer (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Two citation needed tags and the dead link tag taken care of so far. I really don't see the number of tags as excessive, or of necessitating a GAR without warning, but w/e. Will continue working. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the cleanup tags have now been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What are the sources for the length data in the "Botanical information" section? For example, I can't find the diameters for the flowers ("2.5 to 3.5 centimetres") in the two sources provided.. Also, is this a RS?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the un-RS, along with the sentence it supported, as I could not find a solid source for the information. I've begun reworking the Botanical section, as you are correct that the sources given did not support the majority of the information there. Currently, all of the information in the Botanical section is properly sourced, to either the existing ref or a new one that I added. It needs to be re-expanded a bit, which I will work on this afternoon/evening. Other than that work, is there anything else that you feel needs to be done? Dana boomer (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Kept. All the issues I brought up have been addressed. The article now meets the GA criteria. You can still expand the Botanical section if you wish.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)