Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 14:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Obiter dicta that may be ignored: The article is a mite short for an aspiring good article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section says that the pest-free area is periodically adjusted by the DOA, but that is not reflected by the article. Otherwise I see no issues.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Are "goodfruit", Encyclopaedia Metallum and the Washington Apple Commission reliable sources?

C. It contains no original research:
I can't find source #3, but part of the text is supported by #1. I am not sure that source #12 supports the text cited.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Nothing I can see, an alphabetic list of county names is not copyrightable.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No information on economic ramifications or success rate?

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Depending on 3a, however.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area.jpg is a derivative work of File:Blank map of the United States.PNG and should be under the same license.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for your review, Jo-Jo Eumerus - responding to your comments as follows:

The lead section says that the pest-free area is periodically adjusted by the DOA, but that is not reflected by the article. Otherwise I see no issues.

I've substantially updated the section called "Quarantine Regulations" to address this.

This update needs to say "almost" or something of the same meaning, not "Approximately two-thirds of all apples grown in the United States are produced in Washington." since the source says "Washington, which produces almost two-thirds of the apples grown in the United States". I trust that the "A mandatory inspection program requires apples to meet this set of standards that, in some criteria factors, exceed those set by the United States Department of Agriculture." is supported by the LexisNexis source? I also don't see "in the state with between 5,500 and 8,500 traps deployed annually" in any of the sources cited. "The area surrounding locations which successfully trap apple maggots may be further studied by analyzing fruit in the area for the presence of apple maggot larvae and, ultimately, placed in the quarantine zone." needs a pointer to where in the sources it is cited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "approximately" to "almost" and changed "5,500 and 8,000" to "5,500 to 8,500" (sourced here [1]). Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added quote parameters to two of the sources and, for the third source, added page numbers (the relevant section was a distillation of six pages of text so was too long to invoke the quote parameter). Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are "goodfruit", Encyclopaedia Metallum and the Washington Apple Commission reliable sources?

I believe so as follows:

The Washington Apple Commission is a state agency. I've hyperlinked to the (new) article about it and changed the statement to qualify it as "according to the".

Good Fruit Grower is a trade magazine that has a clear process of editorial controls, physical personality by which it can be held liable for its content, and regular publishing schedule [2]. It has been cited as a source by MIT Technology Review [3] and PBS Newshour [4] and may be a limited RS in relation to fruit production.

Encyclopaedia Metallum has been sourced by The Guardian [5], the CBC [6], Deutsche Welle [7], and others and may be a limited RS in relation to music.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find source #3, but part of the text is supported by #1. I am not sure that source #12 supports the text cited.

I've changed the quote to make it true to source.

Not sure that the problem with source #12 (now #13) is fixed in that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong section, I've updated it now with a new source (now source 20). Chetsford (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No information on economic ramifications or success rate?

I've updated the sections "Purpose" to deal with economic ramifications and added a success quantifier in "Quarantine extent, procedures, and efficacy".

That's much better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area.jpg is a derivative work of File:Blank map of the United States.PNG and should be under the same license.

Updated.

Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you see anything else! Thanks again - Chetsford (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: Some source issues may still need a look. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - thanks again for your review. I've updated the article and made notes above. Please let me know if I've missed anything! Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]