Talk:Citrus/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) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Review started

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 27 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. Similar layout and prose style to other fruit related articles which have been reviewed and accepted as GA.
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).	Some documents referenced need the specific page or page ranges added. Ref numbers 32, 45, 48, 55, 64 32: cited to a single chapter of the book already. 45: Page and quote added. 48: Pages added. 55: Pages added. 64: Pages added. Ref 63 has range of 20 pages. Can specific page or narrower range of pages be given? Done. Ref 36 - Dead link URL updated. All identified issues fixed. Now set at "pass". Stivushka (talk) 09:13, 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.	A blend of history, science, art and culture as these topics related to the Citrus plants.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Its subjective but I think the article strikes a good balance.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article has neutral tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable article, no edit warring or other similar
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 either public domain or share-alike with appropriate commons tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Excellent use of images. Diagrams made by Article's authors are of notably high quality and add positively to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some changes made as part of GA review process. These can be reviewed in history section. Well researched and written article. A pleasant read with a good balance between the citrus plants history and taxonomy along with its uses in food and culture. Some references need fixed. See section 3b.

Comments

• Article is currently categorized under “Plants used in bonsai”. This is correct as several citrus species, including the kumquat, are cultivated in bonsai gardens. However, the article does not cover bonsai gardens. I suggest removing the category so that it’s the specific species that are in the category rather than citrus plants generally. Alternately you could add a para on the growing of Citrus fruits in Bonsai gardens, perhaps to the existing section on ornamental plants. Stivushka (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed the stray cat; the implications (semantics) of these things are always a bit vague, but it's probably not specially helpful in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Couple of points picked up during review of references:

• Ref 23 – Dead link. Please provide alternative link. If this is not possible, then URL can be removed as cite already has ISBN.
  • Updated URL.

• Ref 28 – Links to the word “Lith”. Not sure why that’s been done. Since there are already two other cites at the end of the sentence, I suggest removing it … unless there is something I am not seeing? Stivushka (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed.

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.