Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Cucurbita

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved Good Article status and we were advised by a couple users to take it to peer review and then attempt featured status. I am going to ask four users who have been helping to participate in this peer review as well as someone I recently discovered who seems knowledgeable about medical and pharmacology issues. Thank you for your assistance, HalfGig (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these are my notes, check at least the last one:
in the taxonomy section cultivar groups are listed as synonims of species-level taxa and is not that so, even if you put a table later in other section it is confusing.
You mean the section I call "species" or the taxobox? The ones in species are not synomyms according to Nee. I discuss the different views on Cucubit taxonomy in the article.HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not synonyms, but it looks like so, it's confusing. You should find a way to say those groups are "inside" the species taxon. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the disagreements about how to handle Cucurbit taxonomy is confusing. Many of the references simply don't agree, that's why I picked on and saw there are disagreements.
It looks like I didn't express myself enough, I said it "looks like" pumpkin group is a synonym of 'Cucurbita pepo and people can interpret that section that way. --RoRo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also "cultivar group" is not the same as "variety" or "subspecies", a cultivar group groups cultivars based on morphological traits indepently of taxonomic origin. For example "butternut group", "zucchini group" are more correct than variety name.
You need to be more specific here about where in the article you're talking about. This again could be due to different views about Cucurbit taxonomy. I used the taxo per the refs I used. HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No there aren't different views about cultivar groups. I'm not sure about the causes but some people prefers variety or subsp. names for cultivar groups, but they are still cultivar groups. Paris (1986) and after that Paris (1989) defined those 8 cultivar groups of C. pepo with a cultivar group name and a variety name. I don't know the backstage about this practice, but cultivar group names are still more correct. If you insist about variety name you can put those both, but not variety name alone. Cultivar groups can hybridize and if they still have the morphological traits of the cultivar group they are still on the cultivar group, but if a plant descendent of two cultivar group parents don't have the morphological traits, that plant does not belong to that cultivar group. Cultivar groups is a way to delimit plants based on horticultural needs and not phylogeny. And a "zucchini" is defined because of the shape and flavor of the fruit, not because the parents it came from. In zapallito group it looks like the author first defining it (Millán 1947) didn't know the origins and he put a taxon name for that group. Now we know zapallito are cultivars from pre-columbian times, all with the same morphological traits, and all derived from C. maxima subsp. andreana, but from different lines between that species, so they are independently originated cultivars and because of that it's more correct to call them with a cultivar group name: zapallito group. You can find the links on the es:wikipedia talk. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Los zapallitos de tronco de Sudamérica extratropical" only shows up on JSTOR and I did add the tranlator to my browser but it say the page is already in English (as it's an English web site) even though the article is in Spanish, so I can't do anything with that article. I will work on other things on es.wiki but I'll need a few days to get through it. HalfGig (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you should check the International Code of Cultivated Plants for cultivar groups taxonomy and definition. --RoRo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before the table you should say there are more C. pepo cultivars that can't be associated with any of these 8 groups, it is in the referenced literature.
Which reference and which cultivars are you talking about? HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paris (1986) or maybe Paris (1989), the author of the names. I don't remember he put an example of a cultivar not fitting on any of those groups. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Paris ref already in the article from either of those years.HalfGig (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, well it should, becase he is the first author of the names and in 1989 described them a little more. The papers are online: Paris, H. S. (1986). A proposed subspecific classification for Cucurbita pepo. Phytologia, 61(3), 133-138 Paris, H. S., 1989. Historical Records, Origins, and Development of the Edible Cultivar Groups of Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). Economic Botany 43(4): 423-443. I added these images in Commons if you want to use them, they are from the first paper. I uploaded them in spanish but are easily modificable.
There are C. maxima groups not mentioned here that are important in South America, as zapallito group, triloba group, and zipinka group, their description is accesible online at Millán (1947) Los zapallitos de tronco de la América extratropical. Darwiniana.
Much of this is in Spanish too. I would like to add something on them with good sources if in English or in Spanish if someone can translate for us. I don't have the language skills to read or translate any non-English language. I found one good source in English for each of them and have added them. HalfGig (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok what about it: when you finish your work I will read that part with Millán (1947) at hand and add something if neccesary. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do what I can the next few days. HalfGig (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are collecting information about Cucurbita on the es:wikipedia wikiproject talk page, if you want to take a look to the photographs listed and to the linked papers. A member promised to upload a zipinka photograph soon, and we are looking for the rest of the photographs lacking. We are still trying to match information from common names (as they are found for example on sites like the argentinian Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, oriented for non-biologists, or on sites about horticultural statistics) with information about taxa. You will find there other groups too. --RoRo (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd need to be careful about switching between variety" and "cultivar group". I'll go take a look at the info on es.wiki, but I have to admit my foreign language skills are horrible. HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC) The links are all in Spanish. I'll need a translator to use that material. HalfGig (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Chrome can translate foreign-language pages in situ while preserving all their functionality (see Google Chrome#Automatic web page translation). I'm sure other browsers can do the same. I use it all the time and it's become indispensable in my research. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people say translators work well for translations between common languages as english and spanish. For example I use Firefox and I have an extension (Tools - Add ons - Extensions - choose one) called Quick Translator 1.0, but I don't use it much. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another item: I have Robinson and Decker-Walters (1997) Cucurbits at hand (I think it is the most cited classification of the economic Cucurbita), and for C. pepo it uses for reference Paris (1986), defining the 8 cultivar groups you already have. It describes them and describes the most spread cultivars on each. It recognizes 3 horticultural groupings of C. moschata in Northamerica: Cheese, Crookneck (C. moschata Crookneck), and Bell. It says the most widespread C. moschata, 'Butternut', is a Crookneck (but most of the times its neck is straight). My note: I used to find it as a cultivar group (Butternut group), it looks like now there are many hybrids and local deformations of the original 'Butternut'. For C. maxima it cites classification of Castetter (1925) and describes groups: Banana, Delicious, Hubbard, Marrow (C. maxima Marrow), Show, Turban. It describes the most widespread cultivars on each group and a widespread cultivar not belonging to these groups. The book is too North America centered but I already pointed you to some papers about South American groups. --RoRo (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) In the C. pepo table, what if we change "common name" to "cultivar group"? 2) can you get me page numbers for the groups you mention from the 1997 book "Cucurbits"? HalfGig (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes it looks like those are the cultivar group names. You should say they are "cultivar groups" and link that word.
2) Pages 71-83. Send me an email if you don't find the book. --RoRo (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm ready for you to take a look at the article again. A lot of the Spanish pages I tried to use the translator for did not work because it said the web page was too big. HalfGig (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Chemical constituents from Zad68

edit

Hi HalfGig, fine work bringing along this article. I reviewed the Chemical constituents section as requested, here are my notes:

Sourcing
edit

(I always start by looking at the sourcing, I think it's the most important thing.)

  • Yadav 2010 -  Y - 2010 MEDLINE-indexed review article, looks like a good quality source and used appropriately.
  • Burrows 2013 -  Y - Burrows is a toxicologist and is university-affiliated. The publisher is Wiley, well-established for academic and medical works. Looks like a good quality source and used appropriately in this section.
  • Tallamy 1989 -  Y - Tallamy is a PhD and univeristy affiliated, he is an ecologist. Looks like a good quality source and used appropriately in this section.
  • Chen 2005 -  Y - 2005 MEDLINE-indexed review, looks fine. Normally we might complain that 2005 is too old per WP:MEDDATE but the information being sourced is very basic and unlikely to have changed.
  • Andres 1987 -  Y - PhD at Univeristy, looks OK as used.
  • McAuslane 1996 -  Y - PhD, univeristy-associated, writing in area of strength, looks OK as used.
  • Preedy 2011 -  Y/ N - Series of review articles, Academic Press publisher, looks like OK source. But, I am concerned that the content is overstating the anti-cancer effects. MANY things are toxic to cancer cells but have no meaningful health effect in humans (see this XKCD comic!). I would need to see the cited part of the book to confirm.
  • Barbieri 2006 -  N - Primary source, improperly used, you really cannot use a primary source like this to make a general statement.
  • Hou 2008 -  N - Primary source, improperly used, you really cannot use a primary source like this to make a general statement. And again, the anti-cancer effects are probably being overstated.
  • USDA nutrient report -  Y
  • Mayer 2010 -  Y - looks OK.
Prose
edit
      • This rename is probably correct, but it exacerbates the overlap with the Uses section, which of course includes food for humans, and medicinal uses; there's also an overlap between the two sections as regards insect pests. I'm not sure the sections should be merged, but these 3 overlaps need to be addressed by any combination of merging, renaming, and moving sentences or paragraphs. The topics in there are 1) Curcurbits as food; 1a) food issues e.g. bitterness and toxicity 2) Cucurbits as medicine; 3) Pests and diseases; 4) Chemical composition. Clearly these interact to a degree, because the chemicals affect medicinal uses, some pests and diseases, toxicity and flavour. Hope these thoughts help, but work is clearly needed rearranging the sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The current 'Nutrition and health' is still a muddle; I suggest as above a 'Medicine' section for clarity, to contain only the medicinal properties, guess you can include vitamins as also beneficial in there, so that's #2.
          • The chemical composition you have partly resolved with the Summer squash table, the obvious issue for FA being 'what about all other squashes?' - guess that needs some work. That table only concerns chemicals which are nutrients; you also need something on chemicals which are toxic, like Cucurmosin. Why not have a #4 'Composition' section with 2 subsections, 'Nutrients' and 'Toxins'?
            • There's no way we can include a table on every species, not even just the cultivated species.HalfGig (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, indeed not. Maybe (it needs saying) the other squashes are v. similar in composition to the summer squashes? Or maybe nobody knows; or maybe there are certain small but interesting variations. It would be possible to add one or two more cols to the table if other squashes have been measured in a comparable way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That leaves #3 'Pests and diseases' which frankly would be better separated from the others as I said above. At the moment you have Cabbage and Turnip moths in non-culinary uses ?! - clearly not the right place. Suggest a new section, into which can go quite a bit from the 2nd para of Nutrition and health on discouraging herbivores, silverleaf whitefly and defensive responses. I've no idea why you're telling us about herbivores converting carotenoids to vit A, why is that relevant?
  • In general (talking about the article as a whole here), the prose is a bit choppy throughout. The article needs some copyediting before it can go to FAC.
  • "small enough to reduce production costs" - you need a disambiguation or explanation of "production costs" here, as it appears to be a specialized biology use of the term and not an economic one
  • The Chemical constituents section needs to be reorganized a bit, paragraphs organized by topic with all the related info in the appropraite paragraph, eliminate short paragraphs (under three sentences).

Zad68 19:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

edit

More later ... Sasata (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cucurbita/archive1&oldid=1136085424"