Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Durian/archive1

Durian

Durian was one of the focused articles of WP:FAP. Thanks to the members of the project,the sources have been cited, more references were added, external links were turned into references, more images were added, and a lot was done to help the project. If you have problems with the article, it will prbably be fixed as soon as possible Minun ^(talk) 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object
  • The "Selection" section? The one that's "sourced" from the http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Durian_-_Selection/id/1342712 ? The one added in today amid a flood of other rushed edits? That's a mirror of a section of an older version of this same article. It's all unsourced OR, in other words, and now I'm rather worried about the quality of the rest of todays edits.
  • The {{PD-ineligible}} copyright tag on Image:Durian King.jpg and Image:Durian_Tree.jpg is, as far as I know, completely innapropriate: photographs are not generally ineligible for copyright. What is the source of these photographs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sources were added to the images; they were indeed simply grabbed off the web and asserted to be PD. Eek. I've removed the images from the article and tagged them as {{wrong-license}} -- I'm not conversant enough on Image copyvio and deletion practices to know what to do next about them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead image is blurry.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it now, is there anything else that needs changed? Minun ^(talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, I've been through the rest of 1 July's edits with a fine-toothed comb and nothing else really alarming has gone on. As one of the significant recent contributors to this article (BorgQueen did most of it, though) I'm going to abstain from voting now, though I do feel that the subject deserves a much better set of photographs than the article currently has. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object There's no picture of the edible part (there used to be, but it was removed a few months ago). While I'm here, I may as well say that this kind of unseemly rush is not the way to produce good articles. Henry^Flower 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object,

1. I don't understand the division between the Flavour and odour and the Ripeness and selection sections since they appears to be dicsussing closely realted topics.
2. Cultivars should probably be a subsection of species, the information in species is a bit overwhelming and the descriptions vary in the standard of grammar, detailed species descriptions might be better in the list of species.
3. Durians may be attacked by insect pests which lay eggs in the fruit, and the following text are quite uninformative (and in the wrong part of the article), which insects are pests for durian? Does is also have viral pathogens? Are their any other challanges to cultivation?
4. The trade figures section skirts dangerously close to a cut and paste copyvio from the FAO material.

--Peta 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Obviously premature. I appreciate the good intention of the nominator, but the article has a long way to go, as pointed out by above comments. Should have been submitted for peer review first. --BorgQueen 06:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object References formatting is a trainwreck. Highway ^Batman! 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)