Talk:Watermelon/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I can not see any possible way that this qualifies for GA status. The lede alone is so convoluted, full of jargon and confusing that I can’t even work out what this article is about. The article is titled “Watermelon”, but the lede starts “Citrullus lanatus is a plant species ...” If I am a laymen and came here looking for information on watermelons, I am already confused.

The next sentence: “The subdivision of this species into two varieties, watermelons(Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) var. lanatus) and citron melons (Citrullus lanatus var. citroides…..” .

Ok, now as a layman I’m completely confused. I came here looking for information on watermelons, and are being told this is an article about something called Citrullus lanatus, that is subdivided onto watermelons and some other type of melon. But I want information on watermelons.I can’t even go to the section on production, for example, because that section doesn’t clarify whether it is talking about the production of watermelons or the production of citron melons. The lede has told me that this article is about a species that this specie is subdivided into citron melons and watermelons, but none of the subsequent sections clarifies which of those two varieties is being discussed.

Continuing “…..originated with the erroneous synonymization of Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai and Citrullus vulgarisSchrad. by L.H. Bailey in 1930.“

This is a fantastic example of how not to write clearly for a general audience.

Firstly, the sentence is literally 50 words long. Added to that it contains no less than 5 brackets, 2 nested brackets and 10 periods. Think about that: 50 words, 5 brackets including 2 nested brackets and 10 periods as the second sentence of an article. It’s unreadable by anyone with a high school education just on that basis alone. I won’t even of into the word length.

Secondly, it doesn’t convey any information because it’s a non-sequitur. What does the erroneous synonymization of the subspecies C, lanatus and C. vulgaris have to do with the division of the species C. lanatus into the varieties citroides and lanatus? It makes no sense at all, even to a professional. How does the incorrect assignment of subspecies make varieties of those subspecies erroneous? I’m guessing we are trying to say that on of the subspecies was re-assigned to C. lanatus and one to C. vulgaris, but that’s entirely a guess and seems to raise as many questions ans it answers.

And there is the use of jargon. This is a general encyclopaedia, not a taxonomic discourse. Do we really think hat 99% of our readers are going to be able to decipher what “erroneous synonymization of Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai” means? That’s 8 words of pure, meaningless jargon. If we mean that the plant called “watermelon” used to be considered the same species as citron melon and isn’t anymore, then we need to say that. Nobody cares who formally named the type specimen or whose nomenclature they are following. It’s meaningless and irrelevent jargon in an encyclopaedia.

Then the third sentence: “Since 1930, thousands of papers have misapplied the name Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai for the watermelon, and a proposal to conserve the name with this meaning was accepted by the relevant nomenclatural committee and confirmed at the International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen in China in 2017.“

Another 40+ word sentence. At this point, two sentences and ~100 words into the lede, I still have no idea what this article is actually about, even as a professional, The average reader will be completely lost.

A lede should state clearly what the article is about and briefly describe the important points of the subject. In the case of “watermelon” it would seem that one point that is kind of important is that it is a widely cultivated species of plant, in species X, with large fruit that are also called watermelons. But the lede of this article doesn’t mention that anywhere. It says that one subspecies C. lanatus is cultivated for it’s fruit, and then goes on for hundreds of words about what C. lanatus isn’t, without at any stage stating what a watermelon is. It doesn’t provide any information on what a watermelon looks like, how much watermelon is grown worldwide, why it is grown, where it is grown, why watermelons are important and so forth.

The rest of the article is equally confusing.

We have a list of common names in other languages. Why? This is English Wikipedia? We can’t possibly list every name in every language on Earth, so why list the names in these 6 languages? Why are they notable? And is this a list of names in other languages, or in other countries? It says that the name in Botswana is “lerotse” but Botswana isn’t a language. To further add to the confusion, English and Setswana are the two most commonly spoken languages in Botswana, but we are told that the English name is watermelon, and the Setswana name is Lekatane. So what is this ‘lerotse’ that is supposedly used in Botswana?

In the lead we say that the plant is a “ vine-like (scrambler and trailer)” but the next sentence says that the plant has a “prostrate or climbing habit”. Then two sentences after that the article says that it “is a large annual plant with long, weak, trailing or climbing stems” with “branching tendrils “Which is correct? Is it a scrambler or is it a vine with tendrils? If it is a scrambler, then what are the tendrils used for?

Then the article says that the plant is ‘listed on the Threatened Species Programme of the South African National Biodiversity Institute “ I refer editors to WP:LEAST. This is an absolutely astonishing piece of information that just comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. There are millions of hectares of watermelons sown worldwide and trillions of viable seeds at any moment in time. No other country considers it threatened. Why does South Africa think watermelons will go extinct without management?

Then we have yet another description of growth form, and yet another contradiction. The article earlier stated that the flowers are“ yellow, and greenish on the back“. No I am told that “white to yellow flowers grow singly in the leaf axils“. So which is correct, are the flowers white to yellow, or are they always yellow?

Then we get to the taxonomy sections (despite already having over 100 words on taxonomy ion the lede).

“The bitter wooly melon was formally described by Carl Peter Thunberg in 1794 and given the name Momordica lanata.. It was reassigned to the genus Citrullus in 1916 by Japanese botanists Jinzō Matsumura and Takenoshin Nakai…. The bitter wooly melon is the sister species of Citrullus ecirrhosus Cogn. from South African arid regions, while the sweet watermelon is closer to Citrullus mucosospermus (Fursa) Fursa from West Africa and populations from Sudan.[17] “

So what? I came here looking for information on watermelons. Why is this article telling me about bitter wooly melons and Citrullus ecirrhosus and Citrullus mucosospermus without telling me what species a watermelon is? It might as well tell me about honeydew melons. They are all related.

So far, a reader of this article has a vague and contradictory description and a list of names in six randomly selected languages, and that is all the information on the topic of the article that has been provided. In contrast they have almost 500 words on 6 other species.

Then we get to history:

The watermelon is a flowering plant that originated in West Africa, where it can also be found growing in the wild. Citrullus colocynthis has sometimes been considered to be a wild ancestor of the watermelon; its native range extends from north and west Africa to west India.

What the??????

Is it a wild ancestor, or isn’t it? And what does “a wild ancestor” mean? If it is the ancestor, then why is it a separate species? And if it’s one ancestor, and watermelons are hybrids, then what are the other ancestors? You just told me C. lanatus is found in the wild in West Africa? Has it escaped from domestication? ,If C. lanatus is a domestic hybrid, that’s kind of important information to put into the article. If it’s a domestic hybrid that has produced a true-breeding feral form that is truly wild in west Africa, that is freakin’ astonishing. And if it isn’t a hybrid, then how can wild C. lanatus not be the same species as wild C. colclocynthus that you just told me grows in the exact same area?

We also have an illustration of “A tsamma in the Kalahari Desert “. Is this meant to be a wild watermelon, or one under cultivation? The Kalahari is in Southern Africa, but you just told me the plant only grows in the wild in West Africa. Later the article informs me that “Citrullis lanatus, variety caffer, grows wild in the Kalahari Desert, where it is known as tsamma.” But we were just told the plant only grows wild in West Africa. Which is correct? And isn’t C, lanatus called “Watermelon”? That is what this article is about,right? If C. lanatus isn’t called watermelon, then why does the article on watermelon spend all its time talking about C, lanatus exclusively? And if C. lanatus is called watermelon then why is this plant called Kaffir melon?

This is now the seventh species that has been mentioned in this article, a reader still has almost no idea what a watermelon is, how it is used, or why they are important. But they know the names of a lot of other melons and have an array of confusing and contradictory material on those species, although paradoxically they have almost no idea how they are related to watermelons or where watermelons actually came from or even what species they are.

Then we get to cultivation. No mention of where in the world watermelons are grown, how much is grown, how it is harvested, how long it takes to produce a crop and other vital information. But we do know that garden plants are sown in pots and that someone in Japan grew a square melon.

Now we get to cultivar groups. Good god no. More taxonomy. Not only do we have 7 species listed in this article with not a single statement on which, if any of them are watermelons, now we are going to list cultivar groups. I’m not going to go into detail here. This whole section is a hot mess. It introduces another 8 species as far as I can tell, and confused them even further.

Just as one example, I would assume that “watermelon: and “Sweet watermelon” are the same plant. The fruit commonly referred to as a watermelon is sweet, after all. But this section tells me that “DNA data reveal that C. lanatus var. citroides … is not a form of the sweet watermelon C. vulgaris and not closely related to that species.”

So now I have been told that the Sweet watermelon is C vulgaris, and not the same as C. lanatus. But the lede has started out describing C, lanatus, and C. lanatus has been mentioned about 20 times so far in this article. Now I find out that the sweet watermelon is not C. vulgaris.

WTF? At this point I literally feel that I know less about watermelons than when I stated reading this article. If there are multiple species called “watermelon”, why is this the primary article and not a disambiguation page? I want to know about the big, green red fleshed, sweet fruit that I eat in the summertime. Am I on the right page? Is this the article about that fruit, or is that fruit the “sweet watermelon (C. vulgaris), and if so where do I find that article?

Then I told that “The variety known as tsamma is grown for its juicy white flesh. The variety was an important food source for travelers in the Kalahari Desert." What does that mean? The plant can’t be wild in the Kalahari, since I was just told that it only grows wild in West Africa. So in what sense was it an important food source for travelers? Did farmers sell it to travelers? I am growing increasingly confused the further I read into this article.

“Vulgaris group This is Linnaeus's sweet watermelon”

WTF? We were just told that the sweet watermelon is C. vulgaris. Now I am being told that there is yet another form/species/variety/cultivar called “Linnaeus's sweet watermelon”, which is C. lanatus and therefore not the same as the aforementioned “Sweet Watermelon”, which is a different species. Which, if any, of these plants is the watermelon that I buy from the greengrocers?

Then I am told that “C. lanatus mucosospermus is the closest wild relative of the watermelon. It is cultivated for cattle feed” WTF? Isn’t C. lanatus a synonym of watermelon? Isn’t that what the lede implied? If it is not a synonym, then why does the lede talk about it in the opening sentence? If it is a synonym, then how can ‘’any’’ C. lanatus be a relative if a watermleon? And if a watermelon is just one form/variety/cultivar C. lanatus, then why does this article, titled “Watermelon” talk about C, lanatus as a species? And if C. lanatius is a hybrid with C. colocynthis, then how can this be the closest wild relative of the hybrid? If C. lanatus is a hybrid, and this variety has reverted to a true breeding wild form, then how is the “closest wild relative” of a watermelon. It is a watermelon, not a relative!

At this stage I officially gave up on the review.

The article is a hot mess. It can’t seem to decide whether it is about the cultivated fruit called a watermelon, or about a species called C. lanatus that mostly grows in the wild but that is the ancestor of the cultivated fruit. It can’t decide if C lanatus is the cultivated watermelon or if the cultivated watermelon is C. vulgaris or some other species. It can’t decide if the watermelon is a hybrid with C. colocynthis as one ancestor, or if it is a natural species. It can’t decide if wild watermelons only exist in West Africa, or if they also grow in the wild in the Kalahari and Western Australia and so forth. It mentions no fewer than 9 species of melon in 2 genera, and at no point says “A watermelon is species X”.

And those are just the issues with information the article contains. For a very important fruit crop, the article contains almost no material on importance, area of cultivation, yield, husbandry, I’m going to bring this article down to C class until this mess can be cleaned up, At the very least, to even qualify for B class the article needs to clearly state what it is about. Editors need to make up their minds whether this is an article about the cultivated fruit commonly called “watermelon” or if it is about a species called “C. colocynthis” that is called by many names, grows wild and is one ancestor of the hybrid domestic fruit. At the moment the article leaps from one subject to the next literally across adjoining sentences, and as a result contradicts itself and provides next to no information on either topic. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As the person who originally brought this article to GA standard back in 2014, I can tell you that it is now a complertely different article from what it was then. This is largely because content from the article Citrullus lanatus was merged into it on 2 April 2018 with this edit. I think it is now not up to GA standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Mark Marathon: Time to close it I think. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delisting per the above. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)