Talk:Parsnip/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article. I am familiar with other articles by User:Cwmhiraeth, and recognize his hard work and dedication.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a few of the revisions, I mention below, I'll do a copyedit on the article.

Just a few comments...

The etymology section is too short to exist as a stand-alone section. Perhaps it could be added to (1) the history section, or (2) as part of taxonomy and rename it "taxonomy and naming". I think (1) is the better of the options.

I prefer combining it with the Taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede:
- "...a vegetable since ancient times..." how about "since Antiquity"?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Description:
- "The plant has an apical meristem that produces a rosette of pinnate leaves. The lower leaves are petiolate, the upper leaves are sessile, and the terminal leaves have three lobes." - this should be explained so that it is accessible to the average Wikipedia reader.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "has a chromosome number of 2n=22." -- explain this more. It's a technical axiom that most people won't understand.

I'll leave Sasata to explain this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In History:
- This is a very long sentence. "Zohary and Hopf note that the archaeological evidence for the cultivation of the parsnip is "still rather limited", and that Greek and Roman literary sources are a major source about its early use, but warn "there are some difficulties in distinguishing between parsnip and carrot (which, in Roman times, were white or purple) in classical writings since both vegetables seem to have been sometimes called pastinaca yet each vegetable appears to be well under cultivation in Roman times"."

Split. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "was much esteemed and the Emperor Tiberius accepted part of the tribute payable to Rome by Germany in the form of parsnips" - why was it esteemed to be used in tribute? When explaining why it was esteemed, it might be good to divide the sentence, and start the second with the Emperor Tiberius reference.
- what precisely was said about it in "Marvels of Milan" (1288)?
- "He back-crossed cultivated plants to wild stock," just doesn't sound right.
- "...experiment was so successful..." - sounds like an editorial judgment. also, what made it successful?
In Use
- "fried or thinly sliced and made into crisps." - clarify this for a global audience...while they're not on the shelves in the US (that I know about), crisps is a BritEng idiom that would not be known by many Americans...a crisp would be akin to the AmerEng "potato chips" (although the Brits have a different idea of what a "chip" is).
In Etymology:
- OED and other Oxford dictionary state "ME: from OFr. pasnaie, from L. pastinaca (rel. to pastinare 'dig and trench the ground'); ending assimilated to neep. (cf. turnip)"
Layout: I think the Use, Nutritional properties, and Dangers should be associated as three subsection of one larger section. I think Cultivation should be moved up above the new Use/Nutrtionalproperties/Dangers section.
Rename "Dangers" to "toxicity and exposure" or something like that.
Rename "Cultivation problems" to "Pests and diseases"
In cultivation, there should be more information about where it's grown in the world, and issues of trade and transportation (parsnips don't seem to travel as well as carrots), and production yields in the field, fertilization, pesticide use, and global import/exportation figures.

Suggestion-- can we find a good picture of a parsnip dish?

Just a few things I noticed on first pass.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "Cultivation," the entire section is written like a seed packet. Cultivation should be about the ecology of the plant, soil preferences, latitudinal sunshine, fertilizers, not growing instructions for backyard farmers. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"Description" -- an apical meristem is not a "single central growing point," as meristms are areas of undifferentiated tissue, not points. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed "single central growing point" and just left the link. Do you see any more problems with this section? Sasata (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AfadsBad: - Thanks for your suggestions. However, GA reviews have one reviewer unless a second opinion is asked for, I didn't ask for one. So please, do not interfere with my review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how nasty. Please change your template to be accurate, then:

Further reviiews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

So please, don't invite what you don't want. Meanwhile, in return for the nastiness, I'll just tag the hell out of the article and leave you to your ownership issues. Have fun with the article stability part, User:Cwmhiraeth. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

GA criteria:

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]

As I have been told to fuck off from commenting during the review, I will just dispute the content, in the article, where I find problems. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

GA review failure[edit]

On the advice of other GA reviewers and admins, and unfortunately due to instability introduced into the article because of the hijacking of this review by User:Afadsbad, and the disruptively pointy tagging of the article by said user, I must regrettably fail this article's GA nomination at this time. Apparently, disruption wins and goes on without remediative action, and Wikipedia condones people hijacking GA reviews. I apologize to User:Cwmhiraeth and User:Sasata because of these events interfering with their hardwork on the article and wish them luck going forward and on the next GA review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it said that no-one else may comment in a review process? To the contrary, it's made clear in several places that additional comments are welcome. For example, look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations: for all articles in review it says "Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." Responding to perfectly reasonable comments by User:AfadsBad as User:ColonelHenry did was both factually incorrect and rude. Yes, AfadsBad then rather over-reacted, in my view, but the initial fault was clearly not his. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, sure. Hijacking a review, no. I thanked Afadsbad for his/her comments, and asked that he/she not interfere. He/she proceeded to do just that...and made comments here and elsewhere that he/she intended to disrupt it. Apparently, you do not know all of the facts. Nevertheless, it's moot. Afadsbad's bad intentions won the day. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "moot" if you don't accept that writing However, GA reviews have one reviewer unless a second opinion is asked for, I didn't ask for one. So please, do not interfere with my review was wrong, since you may do it again. All that AfadsBad had done up to that point was to flag some botanical errors; he hadn't expressed any opinion on the status of the article. The clear sense of what you wrote was that he should not be commenting, and this is not correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, I am finding serious botanical errors in many more good articles by a small set of editors and reviewers. We probably need to deal with this at Plants. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Peter will come to the same conclusion everyone else did in your multiple failed and continued attempts to say what isn't true: you were out of line. Now move on and get over it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

(Personal attack removed)