Talk:Maple syrup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all! I will be reviewing this article for GA status and will try to complete the review 30 days from today. Please respond to any comments I leave on the next line. Good luck!. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   a.  On hold  Fixed on 04:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   b. ✓ Pass 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

   Comments:

   There are some grammar and punctuation issues I would like to have fixed. See below for details.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (references):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   a.  On hold  Fixed on 05:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   b. ✓ Pass on 04:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   c. ✓ Pass on 04:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   Comments:

   There are some duplication issues as well as some citations that need links and or expansion. See below for details. Beyond that The sources are all of very good quality, easily meeting standards of WP:RS and there is no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   a. ✓ Pass on 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   b. ✓ Pass on 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Comments:

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Comments: Y Based on my initial read through I can see no major neutrality issues. All facts are presented in a straight forward manner without bias. 20:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Comments: Y looking through the history, I see no hints of instability or edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   a. ✓ Pass on 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

   Image 1 - Maple syrup is a verified commons image with no issues

   Image 2 - Sugar-Making Among the Indians in the North is a verified commons image with no issues

   Image 3 - Maple syrup bucket is a verified commons image with no issues

   Image 4 - Sugar house is a verified commons image with no issues

   Image 5 - Maple sap collecting at Bowdoin Park, New York is a verified commons image with no issues

   Image 6 - Sap plastic tubing is a verified commons image with no issues

   Image 7 - Making Maple Syrup is a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licensed image with no issues

   Image 8 - Syrup grades large is a verified commons image with no issues

   b. ✓ Pass on 17:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

   Comments: Y There are no major issues with the images selected.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. Add {{commonscat|Maple syrup}} to the "external links" section

   Done

2. Please change all of the comments enclosed in parenthesis to commas.

   Some done - others were left to preserve grammatical integrity and clarity

3. References 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 27 are all from the same source. Please fix this.

   Fix it? How? They are all different chapters of the same manual, all having different authors, and are thus correctly cited separately.

   Please add the chapter information in so that is made clear, as it stands the citation is malformed - the chapter data should be a number and not a title. If you look at the references as they stand now, the chapter information is not displayed. Additionally, since they are all the same work they should be structured the same, in each one the author information varies from citation to citation. Please standardize them. You could also consider adding quotes (|quote=) to them to further clarify the information, but this is not a requirement. -- Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

   I have added the chapter number, in addition to the chapter title that was already present, per WP:CITE. In addition, if you look at the source, you will note that each chapter has different authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

4. References 34, 35 and 37 are also from the same source. Also please add a link to the appropriate FDA Documentation found here.

   Again, these are different sections, and are thus cited separately. FDA link added under External links.

   As previous. -- Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

   Chapter number is included here, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

5. In the Production section: The claim Maple syrup production is centered in northeastern North America, and is commonly associated with Quebec in Canada... has some issues. The comment as a whole has no supporting documentation for the claim; beyond that, the second half seems to be unsupportable. It seems that the claim is an opinion made by a Canadian and not fact, most people in the United states associate maple syrup production with the Northeastern United States/New England regions. (You can thank Normal Rockwell for that). You might want to reword that so it reads better.

   Amended

6. Also in the Production section: You jump around in production number formats, please standardize on a single format. This is not an English language variation issue because it is the accepted format to use the same numbering format throughout the article. Go with liters across the article followed by gallons.

   Changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this, I have been looking over the article and have some issues I would like to address. I am working my way through the article slowly in order to make sure I get everything.

1. General layout - I took a look at the Apple article as an example of a good article on a common farmed product. The layout in that article flows a bit better than what is found here. Please reorganize the sections using that article as a template.
2. Lead - The fact about American consumption and production is not clearly covered in the article, but it is quickly mentioned in the lead. Please place this in the article as such.

3. Lead - The lead stops summarizing the article after the first three sections, please expand on it a little to give the reader more to go on. You don't need another paragraph, just a bit more heft.

4. History section:
   1. Native Americans sub-section - This section seems a bit sparse, can centuries of Native American production and consumption be truly summarized in two, three-sentence paragraphs?

   2. Development sub-section - The name of this section has been bothering me, it is not descriptive of the section. What is developing? The section talks about the evolution of the manufacturing process over the past century and half. You might want to reconsider the naming on this section.

5. Production section - The production seems to be a mish-mash of two different subjects, one about how it is produced and the other about where it is produced. This should be differentiated better, probably in separate sections. Again, using apple as an example, information about how it is manufactured should be in one section and the information on the trade and commerce of maple sugar should be in another. also look through the article, there is information that is more related to manufacture, such as the info on off tastes, that should be grouped in under the section on manufacture.

More comments

1. Cultural significance - Please cite the second paragraph, I know it is all well known, but cite it please.
2. Food and nutrition - Third paragraph is largely uncited, please find some sources.
3. History - I would like to see the history section expanded, I did a search and found several websites that publish a more extensive history of Native American's use of maple syrup, including the Michigan Maple Syrup Association. Time magazine has an article that can be used, as well as the Google time line feature.

I wish to keep this goingto get it there so please respond soon or I will have to fail the GA request. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your previous points below. I'll take a look at these newer points tomorrow - it's getting quite late here now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now cited the sections noted above, and have added a couple of sentences to History. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Has the reviewer forgotten about this???Moxy (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I pinged him yesterday, let's see if he responds. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope - I was on vacation last week and have had to catch up at work, and haven't had time to sit down and really go over this. I was doing some other maintenance work I have been neglecting on the food portal as well. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, is any one there? No one has been working on the article in the past two weeks, I stopped to give you time to work on the last five comments I left. Do you wish to continue with the review? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've been distracted with other issues recently. Here are some responses to your points:

1. Reorganized a bit. The issue with Apple is that it's also a biological entity in a way that maple syrup simply isn't, and it has a longer history - I've done my best to structure this article in a way that works well for it
2. Removed
3. Every section should now be touched upon in the lead
4. History: the issue here is that there are very few reliable sources available to support an expanded history - as far as I know, no one has conducted any extensive historical studies of aboriginal syrup production, and they themselves, as a primarily oral culture, left few records. I've recast the "Development" subsection as its own section, hopefully that should work better
5. Production section has been reorganized

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we near an end to the review? I can see things progressing on both sides, but just checking for an update since it's been about two months now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the dates of the postings, there are three issues that need to be addressed and I think we will be there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Either everything's done or you may want to poke and remind her; been three weeks since my note and no progress. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think everything is done - Jeremy was probably distracted by his RfA, but I'm hoping we're good to go now. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at this this over the next few days, I will be working over the weekend and finish winterizing my house. I am off Tuesday and will try to finish it by then. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)