Talk:Lemon/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) 04:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Started review

Again many thanks for taking this on so promptly. I look forward to working together with you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reopened GA review following spot check. Will go through article again carefully. I have already fixed some links. Will check rest with fine-tooth comb. Stivushka (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written. Article has a nice flow and is easy to understand.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fully complies. Layout is also consistent with similar GA class articles on similar subjects(fruits, crops, agriculture, horticulture and the like).
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Confirmed
	2b. 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).	A high proportion of the citations are from websites. This is acceptable but in the long run it will likely create a high maintenance workload if article is to be maintained at GA standard - For information onlyStivushka (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Issues with refs fixed (see text below table).Stivushka (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers everything from science to history to the arts … as they relate to lemons. It’s difficult with such a ubiquitous fruit but I think the article does a good job.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think the article is exactly the right blend of history, taxonomy, art and culture.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images support the article well. Diagrams add value particularly in sections dealing with taxonomy.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well researched and written article. Article covers the lemon from its taxonomy, its history, its uses and its cultural impact. Following edits, agreed between nominator and reviewer, and some relatively minor fixes (documented in the text below) the article meets criteria for GA.Stivushka (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref No. 18 links to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. The information supporting the text is there, but it requires the user to use the software to plot the chart. If this is the only source, I will approve but it would be better if the data came up immediately when link accessed.Stivushka (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be nice if there were a way to install a permalink to the search, but nobody seems to have found a way to do that in FAOSTAT's case. This applies to all agricultural product articles, not just the few that I've edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Okay, this is a fair point. Accepted.  Stivushka (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already corrected a number of refs. The following are the outstanding refs to be reviewed:

• Ref 2 – Used once. Currently 19 pages. Can page range be narrowed?
  • I've narrowed the range for you but this is a single chapter and it's normal to cite like this in science articles.

• Ref 5 – Page referenced seems unrelated to subject. Please check. Ref can be removed if needed as there is already another cite.
  • Yes, done.

• Ref 54 “Post-Modernism, Economics and Knowledge” – Does not appear to support the text
  • Replaced ref.

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.