Talk:Sorghum

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sorghum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As part of the GARC, I shall review Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stable?

Other than a minor edit war that was 2 months ago, the article is pretty stable. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

CosXZ: Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap I have a comment under the section "Image check" Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

I was watching this article for a while but never went for the review. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents: The links "Disease resistance" under subheading Pests and diseases and "Commercial sorghum" under See also are circular redirects that go back to this article. The former goes to a deleted anchor ("Research"), the latter to the Cultivation section. Reconrabbit 01:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Earwig shows a 12.3% due to some species being listed in the article that are also listed in the source, but I think it should be fine. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 15:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted. There is no alternative to species names, they can't be copyrighted, and it's always ok to use list items anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Source check

• All citations are styled well
• What makes theplantlist reliable?
  • "Collaboration between the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Missouri Botanical Garden." These are world-leading institutions in their field.
• I can instantly verify [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I am also doing a spot-check
  • [74] ? can't view the whole chapter
  • [16] Y can verify
  • [25] Y can't access
    • Archived.
      • can verify now
  • [73] Y archive is broken, and my cybersecurity program is preventing me from accessing the website directly as it claims that the website has viruses
    • Replaced archive with earlier one that works.
      • can verify now
  • [60] Y can verify
  • [14] Y can verify
• Overall this passes 2C

Image check

• File:Flore_médicale_des_Antilles,_ou,_Traité_des_plantes_usuelles_(10559146133)_(cropped).jpg: why is this image tagged with Public Domain and CC By 2.0?
  • PD is correct, given the image's age. The CC is simply for the modern act of scanning from the book; Fae scanned or otherwise imported many thousands of PD images.

• rest of the images are fine

Chinese Sugar Cane

It was also extremely commonly referred to as Chinese sugar cane in the 19th century / 1800s (and quite possibly further back). I'm not going to edit the article; maybe one of you can do it.