Talk:Banana/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Broc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Will review. Broc (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I'm starting the review with general comments as I find them. I will write in italics improvements that are not strictly needed for a GA.

Prose

• 'Dwarf Cavendish' and 'Gros Michel' should have wikilinks
  • Added.

• Musa acuminata as well as M. balbisiana in the Philippines wikilinks here as well
  • Linked in 'Description'.

• an as yet unresolved debate - MOS:CURRENTLY, plus no evidence of a debate. Perhaps the sentence should be rewritten
  • Edited.

• Many wild banana species and cultivars exist in India, China, and Southeast Asia. why is this in the section "Columbian exchange"?
  • Removed.

• Also, the section is titled "Columbian exchange" but the term is not mentioned at any point in the section.
  • Retitled.

• It involved the combination of modern transportation networks what is "it" in this sentence?
  • Edited.

• but railroad builders like Minor C. Keith participated why the adversative conjunction?
  • Edited.

• culminating in the multi-national giant corporations like Chiquita and Dole is "culminating" the right verb? The Boston Fruit Company later became Chiquita, but what does Dole have to do with it? I think the whole paragraph might need to be rewritten for clarity.
  • Edited.

• In the modern United States, Hawaii is by far the largest banana producer, followed by Florida.[58] this seems completely unrelated to the rest of the section.
  • Removed.

• Peasant cultivation is the title of this section appropriate? Wouldn't "small-scale cultivation" be more fitting? Should the section be kept under "History" or better moved to "Modern cultivation"? There is a wikilink in this section that is perhaps better presented using {{further}}
  • Done. I think the s/section is best where it is, as the 'History' discusses places and companies, while 'Modern cultivation' discusses the botanical aspects of cultivation.

• India is the world leader in this sort of production not sure if this is factually accurate or WP:OR. The source only states that India is the largest producer of bananas (in general) and that only 0.1% of that production is exported.
  • Edited.

• It is unclear if any existing cultivar can replace Cavendish bananas, so various hybridisation and genetic engineering programs are attempting to create a disease-resistant, mass-market banana. One such strain that has emerged is the Taiwanese Cavendish or Formosana I think the BBC article provides interesting insight that should be somehow reflected in the article, but I see multiple issues here:
  • The source does not talk about the various hybridisation and genetic engineering programs
    • Added refs.
  • It is unclear why one would want or need to replace Cavendish bananas, and why would existing cultivars not be up to the task. Perhaps low yield, poor taste, low resistance to pathogens...?
    • Lack of resistance to disease: edited.
  • Isn't the Taiwanese Cavendish a type of Cavendish anyway?
    • With the crucial difference of resistance, as the text states.

• an enzyme that breaks down this sentence structure is repeated twice
  • Edited.

• The vivid yellow color consumers normally associate with supermarket bananas is caused by ripening around 18 °C (64 °F), and does not occur in Cavendish bananas ripened in tropical temperatures (over 27 °C (81 °F))
  • "consumers normally associate with supermarket bananas" sounds rather Western-centric
    • Edited.
  • what happens when bananas are ripened at high temperatures?
    • They stay green.

• Bananas are exported in larger volume and to a larger value than any other fruit. needs WP:ASOF
  • Done.

• There is a need to enrich banana biodiversity by producing diverse new banana varieties, not just focusing on the Cavendish. this is stated as an absolute truth, but in the original source it is a quote. Perhaps such a sentence is generally better located in the section intro rather than here.
  • Moved.

• and the bananas that do grow ripening prematurely - "are ripening" or "ripen"
  • Edited.

• "Black sigatoka" section: I can't find in the source the statement about the cost of treatment of 100$/hectare. I also think the conclusion of the paragraph, In addition to the expense, there is the question of how long intensive spraying can be environmentally justified, seems WP:OR. Marín et al. reach a very different conclusion in their paper, arguing

  safer fungicides, drift, buffer areas, and hazardous waste management, among others, are important issues in the development of new strategies for controlling black Sigatoka. Future disease management programs will continue to focus on an integrated crop management program that includes cultural as well as improved chemical controls. Because of the high susceptibility of the cultivars on which banana export is based, chemical control will continue as the keystone for the management of black Sigatoka.

  • Rewritten.

• considered a moderate level of the DV considered by whom?
  • Removed as not needed, but it's the USDA's DV.

• The potassium-content ranking for bananas among fruits [...] is relatively medium what does "relatively medium" mean? A direct comparison would be better.
  • Edited. All that's being said here is that the value is unremarkable, they're not a specially good source.

Content

• The section "sustainability" needs to be expanded and/or rewritten. The current paragraph mixes anecdotal examples (the destruction of coral reefs in Costa Rica) with more general aspects such as the problems of monocultures in no coherent order. There is no mention of the carbon footprint of banana cultivation, nor of the poor working conditions in several regions. The statement about VSS bananas constituting 36% of the exports does not show two other aspects: the strong geographical differences in VSS adhesion (mostly in export-focused countries, e.g.: Ecuador, Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica, see page 8) and thus the much lower prevalence of VSS, 8-10%, in global production.
  • Edited.

• "Developing countries" section content seems quite related to the above "Peasant cultivation". Should the two sections be merged?
  • Merged.

• "Pests" section does not have an introduction, and the article List of banana and plantain diseases includes the nematodes, here under "pests" as diseases. Would it make sense to have one single section "Pests and diseases"?

• The section Uses > Culinary > Fruit seems to focus only on Southeast Asia, but banana is widely used in cuisines across the world. Would like to see a more global approach in this section. Same problem in the "Banana leaf" section, the focus is again on Southeast Asia but it is widely used in Latin America as well.

• The section Cultural roles > Arts is in my opinion giving only a few unlinked examples of uses or mentions of banana in art. However, the section could take a broader approach: [1][2].

Sources

• Sources 5 and 6 fail verification (tag added). Verrill (at least in the version accessible online [3]) does not specify a number and only brings anecdotal descriptions one may actually see it grow, while Flindt mentions 1.6 m/day (height, not surface).
  • Fixed.

• Sources 5, 6, 18 could use a link to the archive.org version, as well as an ISBN, if available.
  • [5] removed. [6] is a copyrighted book, not sure that can be archived. Same for [18], if I know which ref you mean ... best give author's name as fixes may change ref numbers.
    • I meant this: Special:Diff/1233327164. The book exists at the Open Library on archive.org, and it might be much user for the reader to follow the liunk rather than to look for the book elsewhere. Same applies for adding an ISBN identifier. But as I said, not needed for GA. Broc (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
      • Many thanks. Added archive for [6] RHS.

• Source 7 does not specify the height of "Dwarf Cavendish" bananas.
  • Added a ref.

• Source 13 and 17 are dead links, and the archived version is not accessible. Can they be replaced with another source? Broc (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 13 replaced. Not sure which ref you mean by '17'.
    • It is now [18], "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families". Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Broc (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
      • It worked fine but required user to enter 'Musa'. Have replaced URL with specific result URN to avoid searching.

• Researchers Norman Simmonds and Ken Shepherd proposed a genome-based nomenclature system in 1955. [...] leading to confusion. Source 24 does not seem to be WP:RS (self-hosted material), and source 25 does not support the statement. Perhaps a link to the original manuscript would be better.
  • Added.

• Source Foraging and Farming... [36] does not include the page, making it quite difficult to verify. Is the source necessary? "The deep human prehistory..." [35] already includes the information.
  • Removed.

• Source The Development of the Windward Islands Banana... [60] is a dead URL.
  • Is archived.

• Section "Storage and transport" needs better sourcing. Some statements are unsourced and I would prefer a source that is not directly from the banana producer. What about this one [4]?
  • Added that source. The producer is however likely to be the organisation best informed about these technical/commercial matters.

Images

• "Ralstonia solanacearum on an overripe banana" why is this picture in this section?
  • Repositioned.

Copyvio

• I found a copyvio issue with the paragraph The Honduran Foundation for Agricultural Research..., closely paraphrased from [5], page 3. It is present since Special:Diff/1119799356 from 3 November 2022. I am hesitant to request WP:REVDEL as it would hide several hundreds of revisions, but I need to get a second opinion from an admin.
  • Rewritten the paragraph. You're surely right, revdel is basically impracticable, and frankly for such a small bit of text, hardly worthwhile - it's something one would do if almost a whole article had been shamelessly cribbed. You might also note that your diff shows that the copyvio as perceived at that time was removed, leaving the little bit in this paragraph, so it seems that even the keenest of CV-hunting admins didn't think it much of an issue at that time.
    • I reached out to Diannaa as she handled the revdel back then. Even the keenest CV-hunting admin might miss a paragraph every now and then ;)
      • Broc Revdel status is not a GA criterion, so the GAN can proceed whether the admin takes action or not.

• I found another issue (just one sentence, in the "Conservation of genetic diversity" section), which I removed. Feel free to rewrite if you prefer.
  • Tweaked.

Side issues

Extended content

Early translocation out of ISEA I question This may indicate very early dispersal of bananas by Austronesian traders by sea from as early as 2000 BCE, or they may have come from local wild Musa species used for fiber or as ornamentals, not food. The assignment of this movement to Austronesian traders is unsupported by the source given (Fuller et al, 2015). Whilst the paper discusses, in broad terms, the maritime capability of Austronesian speakers, there is no suggestion that they were involved in this particular translocation. The cited sources says: "However, banana phytoliths from the Harappan site of Kot Diji in southern Pakistan (Fuller & Madella 2009) could indicate a westward diffusion of bananas by sea from Island Southeast Asia to the Indus as early as 2000 BC (Figure 2)." So the paper is saying that there is suggestive evidence of translocation of the banana at that date, but not who performed it. When we consider another paper( Denham, Tim. “Early Agriculture and Plant Domestication in New Guinea and Island Southeast Asia.” Current Anthropology 52, no. S4 (2011): S379–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/658682.) saying: "Multidisciplinary evidence suggests the dispersal of bananas westward from New Guinea occurred within a pre-Austronesian time frame (Denham and Donohue 2009; Donohue and Denham 2009, 2010)" I think we can see why this article needs to exercise some general caution in confidently assigning any movement to Austronesian speakers. Furthermore, a 2000 BC movement by Austronesians seems to be contradicted by [6], which shows that, at this time, Austronesians were steadily spreading across ISEA, with their first long distance sea journey being to the Mariana Islands in 1500 BC. (Yes, Wikipedia is not an RS, but this map is a useful illustration of the chronology, even though it has errors.) I've cut that sentence as doubtful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Similarly, some cautious reconsideration may be due on the article's From Island Southeast Asia, bananas became part of the staple domesticated crops of Austronesian peoples and were spread during their voyages and ancient maritime trading routes into Oceania, East Africa, South Asia, and Indochina. It is quite complex assessing exactly what the literature says on all this – perhaps more so because of the guarded language used by many authors. Therefore this is an early flag of this issue, with more reading to do. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 09:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) I've trimmed the second half of that sentence as doubtful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC) On the "more reading to do", the obvious comment is that the task of a Good Article is to cover "the main points", which might be summarized as 1) the banana is a favourite fruit, eaten in large quantities; 2) it's widely traded; 3) it's a product of domestication; 4) modern bananas are seedless clones, which 5) therefore face numerous problems. The article says all this already. The other criteria cover neutrality, clarity, citations and so on. I don't find "precise details of prehistorical spread" among the GA criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) The "more reading" comment was directed at me, not anyone else. Sorry, should have made that clear. The role of the banana in one of the few centres of the development of farming would have been on my "blank sheet of paper" planning for such an article – obviously just my thinking, with only the example of the GA on Wheat to suggest that is not an isolated view. But that's enough from me on this. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Unusual genetics I find it surprising that the unusual genetic feature of the banana, that chloroplast DNA is inherited maternally, whilst mitochondrial DNA is paternal, is not mentioned in the article. It seems this makes study of the various species and subspecies easier than with other inheritance systems. This helps give a good understanding of their domestication. See Donohue, Mark, and Tim Denham. “Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian History.” Current Anthropology 51, no. 2 (2010): 223–56. https://doi.org/10.1086/650991. for mention of this (at page 226). JSTOR link is at [7]. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Part played in the independent invention of farming I wonder whether the article should mention that the banana was one of the key crops in the independent invention of farming in Papua New Guinea. I only have a research paper as a source for this (so, primary source) but there should be better ones available. Denham, T. P., S. G. Haberle, C. Lentfer, R. Fullagar, J. Field, M. Therin, N. Porch, and B. Winsborough. “Origins of Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea.” Science 301, no. 5630 (2003): 189–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3834782. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) All right, I've done that, but we are in some danger of wandering around fixing regional mentions and minor points (this is now the third one, and the GAN has barely got started), rather than getting on with checking and fixing any issues around the 6 GA criteria, which is the purpose here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC) I agree with Chiswick Chap here, let's keep the review focused on GA criteria. Broc (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC) I am no expert in GA and FA processes, so apologise if I am out of order here, but it seems that the involvement of the banana in the independent development of agriculture in one of the handful of places that this happened is one of the basic facts about this plant. So that would be 3(a) of the GA criteria. Compare this with wheat, where there is a separate subsection on Domestication and a prominent mention of the first cultivation in the second sentence of the lead of that article. As far as article content goes, I would have gone for something like: The banana was one of the key crops involved in the independent development of farming in Papua New Guinea. I would have liked to link to an article on early farming that actually does the PNG origin of farming some justice, but have not found anything that really does that. The last table in Vavilov center seems to be the best overview of the places and crops involved, hence the link – but this suggestion still feels unsatisfactory to me. Not a problem if you feel I have gone off mission here, in which case, please ignore. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 09:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) I've added a brief mention and the citation; if the reviewer wants more, that's up to them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Madagascar Malagasy settlement date I question the date in It is likely that bananas were brought at least to Madagascar if not to the East African coast during the phase of Malagasy colonization of the island from South East Asia c. 400 CE.[41]. I do not have access to the source (Madagascar: A Short History), but if it does state c. 400 CE as the date of Malagasy settlement, then that is commonly disagreed with by widely cited authors such as Alexander Adelaar. The accepted dates are in the latter half of the first century AD, with a range of 6th to 9th centuries. The date of Malagasy settlement is key to the narrative in the article. I would have edited c. 400 CE if I knew how the cited source dealt with this. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Yet another intervention! I do hope that's it now. Well, yes, the colonization was from 600 AD or so. It seems from Adelaar the banana had been in East Africa from 300 BC or thereabouts, but maybe we'd need to distinguish the highland banana from other types. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) If, at some later date, you needed an up-to-date source summarising the banana's arrival in Africa (with a conclusion of an arrival in Africa of AAB plantains "more than 2000 years ago", with later arrivals "more than 1000 years ago" of AAA and AA types), I suggest: Grimaldi, Ilaria M.; Van Andel, Tinde R.; Denham, Tim P. (February 2022). "Looking beyond history: tracing the dispersal of the Malaysian complex of crops to Africa". American Journal of Botany. 109 (2): 193–208. doi:10.1002/ajb2.1821. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 10:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) @ThoughtIdRetired @Chiswick Chap I am not sure how to deal with this situation, nor I understand why all these issues are being raised in the GA review by a non-reviewer. I think the best would be for me to put the review on hold, let you sort out the content issues that are still open, then start the review again. Unless @ThoughtIdRetired thinks there are no major issues with the page and that content improvements can continue separately from this review. Please let me know how you two want to proceed. Broc (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) I should be clear that this is the last issue in the article that I can identify. To me it is resolved by removing the problem sentence entirely – though different solutions may be apparent to others. There are uncertainties over how and when the banana made its way out of ISEA/New Guinea (with Africa being a major destination); similarly with the associated human migrations. Obviously that is only a small part of the overall article content, so I would be concerned if this stopped the review process. (Hence my flagging the useful source for use "at some later date".) I have raised here as the first similar comment was moved here from the article talk page by the nominator. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 12:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC) I've made a fix in each of the cases, and I think from the above that there are no showstoppers anyway, so the GAN can proceed as normal now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Review on hold

Placing on hold until following points are addressed:

• "Pests" section does not have an introduction, and the article List of banana and plantain diseases includes the nematodes, here under "pests" as diseases. Would it make sense to have one single section "Pests and diseases"?
  • Added. It could be grouped either way: this way is conventional, diseases having microscopic agents while pests go all the way up to African elephants.

• The section Uses > Culinary > Fruit seems to focus only on Southeast Asia, but banana is widely used in cuisines across the world. Would like to see a more global approach in this section. Same problem in the "Banana leaf" section, the focus is again on Southeast Asia but it is widely used in Latin America as well.
  • Extended with more examples from other regions.
  • Leaf: we can only go by the sources, and the task is just to cover "the main points", which the section does. The examples given already cover India as well as Southeast Asia, by the way.

• The section Cultural roles > Arts is in my opinion giving only a few unlinked examples of uses or mentions of banana in art. However, the section could take a broader approach: [8][9].
  • Added. Again, the arts are extremely diverse and bananas have been used in multiple ways, which the article can only reflect.

@Broc: - all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

good to go

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   prose issues raised above were fixed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   sourcing issues raised above were fixed

   C. It contains no original research:

   one minor OR concern was raised and fixed

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   copyvios were addressed by removal or rewriting, no REVDEL requested as it was old and minor violations

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   lack of global coverage in some sections was solved

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Broc (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.