Talk:SweeTango/GA3

GA Review 3

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• I've run a few scripts to clean up a few of the refs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• patented cross breed between the 'Honeycrisp' apple and the Zestar! apple - repetition of "apple". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• The reason for this is quality control and exclusive territories for growing. - this isn't a sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• This bit seems a little promoy - The apple is a controlled and regulated product for marketing to the public. The reason for this is quality control and exclusive territories for growing. - what about The SweeTango apple is controlled and regulated for marketing, allowing only exclusive territories for growing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link tart? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• For a fee - I don't think this needs to be highlighted in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• exclusive marketing rights to grow, or to have others grow, or sell the 'Minneiska' apple - this sentence just keeps going on. Why not just say exclusive marketing rights to sell and grow the apple? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• sold 'rights' to - rights isn't a quote, it's a real legal definition so doesn't need the inverted commas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• It was exclusive at first just - exclusive and just are implied. Remove just. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

General

• Could we get a short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Some alttext for the images? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• 'Minneiska' (SweeTango label) - this is explained earlier, remove Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• A couple sentences could do with being merged. "The apple variety 'Minneiska' was intentionally bred and selected for its combination of fruit traits. There are 20 characteristics involved in these traits." for example could be merged into one complex sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's worth going through and either calling it Minneiska, or SweeTango rather than both. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• The pungent concentrated flavors are more complex than the Honeycrisp; the author Amy Traverso - should this not be Honeycrisp; author Amy Traverso...?

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• The orchard in turn in 2006 established a 45-member grower's cooperative named Next Big Thing of commercial growers originally only in the state of Minnesota. - I'm not sure what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Patent Number US PP18,812 P3 was obtained on May 13, 2008 by research scientist breeders David S. Bedford and James J. Luby - the actual number seems overkill. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to support. Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)