Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cucurbita/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Cucurbita

Nominator(s): HalfGig, Sminthopsis84, Chiswick Chap

This article, Cucurbita, is about the genus of plants called squash, pumpkin, and/or gourd depending on local parlance. They are native to the Western Hemisphere. The fruits of this genus are an important source of human food and play several roles in human culture. We've enjoyed working on this for over a year and hope you enjoy reading it. There are many people without whom we could not have gotten this article this far; too many of them to list here. HalfGig talk 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

the tools are reporting it has "Squash (plant)" which is a redirect, but it doesn't. I don't know how to fix this. HalfGig talk 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap looked at this. See this talk page thread. HalfGig talk 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata

Good to finally see this article at FAC! I'll post a full review later, but for now a few comments:

• I noticed that Linnaeus is briefly mentioned at the start of the "Species" section. May I suggest this sentence be expanded to a short paragraph describing his original circumscription, as well as a brief mention of the synonyms listed in the taxobox (which aren't mentioned elsewhere). Also, you could give a direct link to Linnaeus protolog (link here; page # is 1010, not 2010)
  • We'll work that. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Nice correction to the page number! I've added Genera Plantarum because Species Plantarum needs that for completeness. I wondered about mentioning earlier people, like Tournefort, whom Linnaeus is basically copying from. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Good addition, that's pretty much what I envisioned. Sasata (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• ref #36 (Kemery 2014) indicates a PDF, but there's no link
  • That's because if you search the title it'll find it but when you click it it instantly gives you a download. I downloaded it and read it but I can't get it to display in a browser. How does one rectify this for the reference? I don't know how. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This is now ref 38. I added two more refs for this. But can 38 be fixed? Can we keep it or not? HalfGig talk 00:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This is now ref 39, but I can't find it now so I've replaced it with another university ref. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• missing a conversion for "20–35 cm wide"
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• is dietary fiber considered a nutrient (lead)?
  • Cut, it's mentioned in the article, so not needed in lead. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• missing citations:

• "Female flowers of C. pepo have a small calyx, but the calyx of C. moschata male flowers is comparatively short."
• "Cucurbita are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron. They are free of cholesterol."
• entire paragraph ending with "has significantly different enzymes and chromosomes."

This was all the result of copyediting. They all had refs at one point. I dug them up by going through the history of the article. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from CorinneSD

Resolved comments

Comments about the lede

1) Regarding this sentence:

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and traditionally of detergent.

This part: and traditionally of detergent does not sound right. It would partly improve it if you added commas around "traditionally":

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and, traditionally, detergent. (no "of" before detergent)

But that's a little inelegant. Another problem is that the word "traditionally" suggests that it is no longer an important source of detergent, and since the verb of the sentence, "is", is in present tense, detergent doesn't belong in the list. You might perhaps fix that problem by changing the verb to present perfect tense and adding a time period:

• For hundreds [or thousands] of years, the Cucurbita genus has been an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil and detergent. [Here I think you can leave out "traditionally" because the time span is large enough that you don't have to be so accurate about the present time.]

Another solution would be to leave the verb in present tense (or change it to present perfect) and leave out detergent. I think the word "traditionally" unnecessarily clutters up the sentence.

Since it's in the lead I cut it. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2) Regarding this sentence:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, which are used as utensils or vessels, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe.

I know you've worked on this sentence, but it is still not perfect. You have two adjective clauses in this sentence, both beginning with "which" (they must begin with "which" and not "that" because they are non-restrictive, or non-identifying, adjective clauses). I suggest the following wording to reduce the number of adjective clauses to one:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are used as utensils or vessels. They are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe.

Another possibility is the following wording:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels.

or:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe; rather than providing food, they are used as utensils or vessels.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

3) In the third paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

• The flowers are yellow or orange, and there are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: the female flowers that produce the fruit and the male flowers that produce pollen.

I think the definite article "the" can be removed before "female flowers" and "male flowers". You're not talking about specific flowers; you're talking about types of flower:

• The flowers are yellow or orange, and there are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: female flowers that produce the fruit and male flowers that produce pollen.

but the sentence still does not sound right. The first half of the sentence is not closely related to the second half, and the first half is in a different sentence structure from the second half. I suggest the following wording:

• The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange and are of two types: female and male. The female flowers produce the fruit and the male flowers produce pollen.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you changed it. Did you mean to leave out the link at "tribe"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

HalfGig I don't know if you saw this. CorinneSD (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OOPS. Missed that one. Fixed now. Thanks! HalfGig talk 17:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

4) The last sentence in the lede is the following:

• Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated in festivals such as Halloween, pumpkin chucking, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries.

I was about to add "in" before "flower and vegetable shows" because "flower and vegetable shows" are not examples of festivals, when I realized that Halloween is not a festival, either. It is a traditional holiday, but not a festival. I don't know how you want to fix this. One possibility is to delete "in festivals such as":

• Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keen Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments about the section "Description":

1) I'd like to say something about these two sentences:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and are mesophytes, plants which require a more or less continuous water supply. The perennial species grow in tropical zones and are xerophytes, plants which tolerate dry conditions well.

I assume that if a Cucurbita species is not a mesophyte, it is a xerophyte, and vice versa. If I am correct, then the xerophytes are less common than mesophytes. Something needs to make clear the relationship between these two sentences. Before I suggest an alternate wording, I'd like to ask whether any xerophytes are climbing annual vines.

All Cucurbita can climb if they have a structure to attach to, such as a corn stalk. Otherwise they grow along the ground. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You'll see that I don't know much about plant biology. As I said before, the relationship between those two sentences is not clear. Now I know that xerophytes can be "climbing annual vines", but, clearly, because of the definitions you've provided, a plant can be a xerophyte or a mesophyte but not both. Are all "perennial species" xerophytes? And why don't you mention "annual species" anywhere? CorinneSD (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, they can't be both. I'm only talking Cucurbita here...not any other genus, which I know far less about....Xerophytes are perennials not annuals. You said both in your last post. So to answer one of those question, yes, in the genus Cucurbita, all perennials are xerophytes. I do mention annuals, the article says "Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and are mesophytes". Most Cucurbita will be annual and mesophytes. Only a few are perennial and xerophytes. Does this help at all? HalfGig talk 03:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I missed "annual" in "climbing annual vines". I'm sorry. What would you say to adding the phrase "The lesson common" or "The less numerous" before "xerophytes":

• The less common/The less numerous perennial species grow in tropical zones and are xerophytes, plants which tolerate dry conditions well. CorinneSD (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2) The next sentence following those two is:

• Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or along the ground.

There is something wrong with this sentence. The way it is worded now, the verb climb applies to both "adjacent plants and structures" and "along the ground":

• Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or [climb] along the ground.

The verb climb doesn't really work with horizontal movement along the ground. You could add the verb crawl, move, or extend:

• Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or crawl along the ground.

Do the tendrils actually help the plant crawl, move, or extend along the ground? If so, then you can use one of those verbs as in the version just above. The phrase "growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft)" doesn't really say height or width. I guess the reader is supposed to assume that it means that it grows 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft) in height. Whether or not you think that is clear enough without the phrase "in height", it seems odd to mention tendrils that help it crawl along the ground, which is horizontal movement. Just some things to think about.

I used crawl. I also added "in height or length", because that depends on if they grow up or out. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clearer now. I prefer "extend", though. It's more academic than "crawl". CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments about the section "Germination and seedling growth":

1) In the first paragraph, the second sentence is the following:

• Seed with maximum germination potential in C. moschata had developed by 45 days after anthesis, and seed weight reached its maximum 70 days after anthesis.

Coming right after a sentence in present perfect tense (has been directly linked), this sentence in past perfect tense (had developed) and past tense (reached) puzzles me. It sounds like it refers to a specific experiment or research result, but no indication of time or place is given. If you want to keep those verb tenses, you need to indicate to what experiment or research this refers. If you're referring to a generally accepted truth about the seeds, you need to use present tense. Also, I don't understand the use of the singular "seed" at the beginning of the sentence.

I tried to fix this. Think of the singular seed as collective, as in "a sack of bird seed", which is thousands of seeds, not just one. Does this help? Ok now? HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean by the singular seed as a collective noun, and I saw you changed "had developed" to "developed", but the sentence is still not clear to me for several reasons.

1) When and where did this happen? You can't just have a sentence in past tense sandwiched in between a sentence in present perfect tense and the subsequent sentences in present tense.

Asking Sminthopsis84 to handle these two. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2) What does "Seed...developed" mean? CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking Sminthopsis84 to handle these two. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

1) and 2) Although I'm a little uncomfortable with generalizing from one experiment, I think that is the wikipedia style, since there's no point in citing the experiment if it isn't taken as a general indication. I've changed these sentences to "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein. Seed with maximum germination potential in C. moschata develops by 45 days after anthesis, and seed weight reaches its maximum 70 days after anthesis." I hope that solves the problem that the subsequent text is in the present tense. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph is the following sentence:

• Phytate forms in seeds tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids.

I don't understand the use of the plural "seeds" as an adjective before "tissues". Also, even though there is a link at "Phytate", for an average reader who doesn't already know what "phytate" is, there is potential for ambiguity at the beginning of the sentence. "Phytate forms" can be read as noun - verb or as adjective - noun (because "forms" can be a verb or a plural noun). It only becomes sorted out when one continues to read. (The plural "seeds" before "tissues" doesn't help.) I'm wondering whether some descriptive phrase could be added before "phytate" to give the reader an idea of what it is: "The...... phytate forms...." If you don't want to do that, then perhaps changing "seeds" to "seed" will be enough. CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I cut the "seeds" to "seed". To me that helps. Work for you too? I added an explanation clause. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the change from "seeds" to "seed" helped improve the sentence. The additional phrase only helps a little. Let me ask you: in the next sentence it says, "The nutrients in globoids". What's the relationship between that sentence and the one we've been discussing? Do those nutrients include phytate, or are those nutrients phytates? (I always try to make the connection between a sentence and the sentence before it clear; sometimes all it takes is the use of the right word or phrase.) CorinneSD (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are related. Globoids contain phytate, hence phosphorus, which is essential for plant growth, as well as other nutrients. HalfGig talk 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

O.K. What would you say to adding, "including phytates" or "including this stored phosphorous" (between a pair of commas) after "The nutrients in globoids"?:

• The nutrients in globoids, including this stored phosphorous, are eventually used completely during seedling growth.

To tell you the truth, when I first read that sentence about phytates, it wasn't clear to me whether it was something beneficial or something harmful to the plant. If it is made clear that it is a nutrient, then I know it is something beneficial. CorinneSD (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

HalfGig, I know you've done just what I suggested, but I have re-read these two sentences several times and I feel that they don't fit well together. The sentences are awkward and the relationship between the two sentences is still not completely clear. Here they are as they are now:

• Phytate, a type of stored phosphorus, forms in seed tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. The nutrients in globoids, including this stored phosphorus, are eventually used completely during seedling growth.

I'd like to suggest the following re-wording:

• A type of stored phosphorus called phytate forms in seed tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. Along with other nutrients, phytate is used completely during seedling growth.

With this wording, the second sentences develops naturally out of the first. I have left out "eventually". I think "during seedling growth" is sufficient to indicate when phytate is used. I also left out "in globoids" after "nutrients". If you think it is important, you can add it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. HalfGig talk 23:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Comments about the section "Species"

I noticed that in the list of species in the third paragraph of the section, the countries of origin are given after the word "origin" followed by a hyphen. Is that standard format in botany? I haven't often seen a hyphen used that way. I would have thought either a colon after "origin" or a spaced en-dash would look better.

I made them ndashes. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments about the section "Habitat and distribution"

1) I paused at these two sentences:

• Within C. pepo, the pumpkins, scallops, and possibly crooknecks are ancient and were domesticated separately. The domesticated forms of C. pepo have larger fruits and larger yet fewer seeds.

(a) Regarding the first sentence, in the phrase "were domesticated separately", it is not clear what "separately" refers to. Separately from what?

Different times and places. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added that to the sentence, which hopefully clarifies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(b) It is not clear whether "the domesticated forms of C. pepo" at the beginning of the second sentence are the same as "the pumpkins, scallops, and possibly crooknecks" that "were domesticated separately" (first sentence), or different.

It does if they are domesticated. I've added "than non-domesticated forms" to the end. We can tweak that even more if needed. Pumpkins, scallops, and crooknecks are only 3 of the 12 or so types of C. pepo. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(c) In the second sentence we read: "have larger fruits and larger yet fewer seeds". Larger than what? It's not clear.

See prior response. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(d) Regarding that same phrase, it would be a stylistic improvement to avoid the use of "larger" twice in such close proximity. One solution would be just to change one of them to "bigger". Another suggestion is to change "and larger yet fewer seeds" to an adjective clause describing the fruits:

• have bigger fruits whose seeds are larger yet fewer in number", or

• have larger fruits whose seeds are bigger yet fewer in number" (better).

Chose this one. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

2) At the end of the third paragraph are the following two sentences:

• It is found from sea level to as high as 1,800 meters (5,900 ft) in dry areas or areas with a defined rainy season. Seeds are sown in May and June at the start of the rainy season.

The second sentence says that seeds are sown...at the start of the rainy season, but you just mentioned that Cucurbita argyrosperma is found in dry areas as well as in areas with a defined rainy season. In those dry areas, is there a rainy season? If not, then when are seeds sown in those areas? CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is unknown to me. Can you help wordsmith this? HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded that to clarify it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Done

Further comments by CorinneSD

Resolved comments

I hope my comments will not be seen as nitpicking. If you read my comments and suggested re-wordings carefully, I think you'll see that my goal is to increase clarity and improve sentence flow. (Read all the way through before you make any changes.) First, I'm going to copy the entire first paragraph of the article here:

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world. The plants, referred to as squash pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels.

1) Unless this is standard language among botanists, in which case I guess it should stay, I am not pleased with the sound of the first sentence:

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica.

The reason is that, normally, we say "X is native to [place]", but "X was first cultivated in [place]". Ideally, I'd like to add "that is" before "native to":

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae that is native to...

but even if it's not added, it is understood, so the "is" applies to both "native to" and "first cultivated in", and "[is] first cultivated in" does not make sense.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2) Also, the way it is worded now, there is some ambiguity in the "native to and first cultivated in". It could refer to Cucurbita or "the gourd family Cucurbitaceae". The way to clear up the ambiguity is to separate "native to..." from "the gourd family Cucurbitaceae". One possibility is:

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae. It is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica.

Another possibility is a small re-arrangement:

• A genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae, Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica.

This puts Cucurbitaceae far from, and Cucurbita closer to, "is native to...". For clarity, this is actually the best wording, but I don't know if there is some requirement that the subject of the article be the first word in the article.

I like that last wording too, but also don't know if it has to be the first word. HalfGig talk 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

3) In the phrase "referred to as squash pumpkin or gourd depending on species", shouldn't there be a comma after "squash"? You don't mean that "squash pumpkin" is a phrase unto itself, do you?

Fixed. HalfGig talk 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

4) At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lede are the following two sentences:

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these species can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; C. pepo includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

Even though I may have worked on these sentences earlier, upon re-reading I see that the beginning of the second sentence needs some work:

(a) I think that, in the phrase "All of these species", the word "species" can be omitted:

• All of these can be treated as...."

(b) You might consider adding "however," after the semi-colon or after C. pepo.

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; however, C. pepo includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

or:

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; C. pepo, however, includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

5) At the beginning of the third paragraph in the lede is the following sentence:

• Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have tendrils, but non-vining "bush" cultivars of C. pepo and C. maxima have been developed.

I would add the word "also" after "have":

• Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have tendrils, but non-vining "bush" cultivars of C. pepo and C. maxima have also been developed.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

6) The next sentence is:

• The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange and are of two types: female and male.

I probably wrote this sentence, too, but upon re-reading it I thought of something. The sequence "are yellow or orange and are of" is all right but is a little awkward-sounding. It also puts equal emphasis on the color and the fact that they are of two types. I'm wondering if it is necessary to say "The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange." I'm wondering what you think of this:

• The yellow or orange flowers on a Cucurbita plant are of two types: female and male.

This tells the reader that the flowers are either yellow or orange but puts less emphasis on the colors and focuses on the types (and the next sentence after this continues discussion of the types, so that focus is appropriate). What do you think? That's all for now. Will continue reading. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

About the section Cucurbita#History and domestication:

1) The second sentence in the section Cucurbita#History and domestication is:

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south into what is now known as Mesoamerica and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

According to the first sentence in the article on Mesoamerica, the region called "Mesoamerica" extends southward from the middle of Mexico. Since "southern Mexico" is in Mesoamerica, the phrase "spreading south into...Mesoamerica" isn't quite accurate. (If it's in Mesoamerica, it can't spread into Mesoamerica.)

Perhaps a small word change would avoid that inaccuracy but express pretty much the same thing:

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

Since it says at the beginning of the article that Cucurbita is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica, I don't see why you don't add "into South America" after "spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica":

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica, into South America, and north to what is now the southwestern United States. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. HalfGig talk 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2) Toward the end of the last paragraph in Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution is the following sentence (read to the end before you make any changes):

• In 1986 Paris proposed a revised taxonomy of the edible cultivated C. pepo with eight groups based on their basic shape and color, which varies widely.

I suppose, just judging from the verb "varies", the adjective clause "which varies widely" refers just to color, but it might also refer to "basic shape". If it refers to both "basic shape" and "color", the verb needs to be changed to "vary". If it refers only to color, I would add "and on their" before "color" to make it clear that the clause refers only to color. I'd also like to suggest that you change "with" to "that consists of" or "that includes":

• In 1986 Paris proposed a revised taxonomy of the edible cultivated C. pepo that consists of eight groups based on their basic shape and on their color, which varies widely.

I actually think it would be better to leave it "their basic shape and color" but leave off the adjective clause, "which varies widely". You could say somewhere else that their color varies widely. The important thing here is that the revised taxonomy is based on their basic shape and color. If it is important to mention their colors, you could write,

• ...based on their basic shape and their widely varying colors.

or:

• ...based on their basic shape and varied colors. CorinneSD (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on this, and I know you selected one of the two alternatives I suggested, but upon re-reading, I have to ask you: was Paris' new taxonomy really based on all the different colors? Basic shape I can understand. But I believe I read somewhere that the colors vary widely even within one species, so creating a taxonomy based on all these colors doesn't seem to make much sense. You can ask Sminthopsis84 about this, but I would keep this simple: "based on their basic shape and [varied] colors". I really don't know to what extent the taxonomy is based on the colors, but the more elaborate wording you chose suggests that one principle upon which the taxonomy was based was the many colors -- a bit confusing. CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the Paris article again, I think it would be accurate to drop the mention of color from the classification, saying something like "based primarily on the shape of the fruit". The flesh of the fruit and whether the rind is hard are also important for deciding where a cultivar belongs in that classification, and color plays some part (e.g., vegetable marrows are not yellow or striped), but fruit shape alone could be used to accurately place each cultivar into that classification. I'll make that change; see what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

3) Regarding the table in this section, I just don't understand the photo of the pumpkin. I have never seen a red pumpkin. All my life I have seen pumpkins, and they are all orange -- not even reddish-orange -- just orange. I know there have been discussions regarding this earlier, but even if pumpkins are red in some other part of the world, they are native to Mesoamerica and soon moved into North America, so are kind of native to North America, which is where I am, so I think the picture of the pumpkin should show an orange pumpkin. Also, most of them are rounder, not as narrow as the one in the table. CorinneSD (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a red pumpkin anywhere. HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the only image of a pumpkin in the table. It's reddish-orange. CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen several pumpkins that color. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the photo. HalfGig talk 02:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. You don't have to change the photo. It's just that the pumpkins I'm used to look like the ones in the article on Pumpkin, the first image in the section Pumpkin#Description. The caption says, "Several large pumpkins". Do you see the difference in color? CorinneSD (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

About Cucurbita#Toxins:

1) In the middle of the third paragraph is the following sentence: [Note: read to the "Update" below before making any changes.]

• Cucurbitacin is a plant steroid poisonous to mammals found in wild Cucurbita in quantities sufficient to discourage herbivores, and in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family. It has a bitter taste, and is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, with the exception of an occasional C. fraterna and C. sororia, bitter to taste.

There are some things about these two sentences that are not clear to me.

(a) The phrase "poisonous to mammals found in wild Cucurbita" sounds like some mammals are found in the wild squashes.

(b) I think you could mention at the same time that Cucurbitacin is both bitter and poisonous.

(c) If Cucurbitacin is found in wild Cucurbita and "in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family", where is it not found? In cultivated Cucurbita? But I thought even cultivated Cucurbita are within the Cucurbitaceae family. I'm totally confused by this.

(d) Regarding the second sentence, I assume that "It" means "Cucurbitacin", but this pronoun is so far from its antecedent, with several singular nouns in between, that it would be a good idea to replace the pronoun with the noun.

(e) I think there is a bit of unnecessary repetition here. You're saying:

Cucurbitacin has a bitter taste and is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds...bitter to taste.

Why would any thing or anyone ever taste Cucurbitacin by itself? Is the first part of this sentence necessary? Why not just say:

Cucurbitacin is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, ..., bitter to taste.

If you want to explain things, I'll be glad to revise the sentences to whatever extent you wish, or you can go ahead and work on the sentences yourself; either way is fine. Or, of course, if you think they're fine as they are, you can leave them as they are. CorinneSD (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Update

I think I've figured out a wording that would address most of the issues I raised. I haven't changed anything in the article, but I'll put this version here so you can look and think about it. If you decide to use it, you'll have to figure out where the references go.

• Cucurbitacin is a plant steroid present in wild Cucurbita and in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family. Poisonous to mammals, it is found in quantities sufficient to discourage herbivores. It makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, with the exception of an occasional C. fraterna and C. sororia, bitter to taste.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

- CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

About Cucurbita#Production:

1) Regarding the table, is there any way to get the heading, "Top ten squash producers — 2012", all on one line? If the table itself has to be made wider in order to do that, perhaps the "Country" column could be made wider.

No idea. We'd need a table expert for that. HalfGig talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2) The first sentence after the table is the following:

• The only other countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native are Cuba, which ranks 14th with 347,082 metric tons, and Argentina, which ranks 17th, with 326,900 metric tons.

I don't understand the first part of this sentence. I don't understand "The only other countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native". Perhaps it should be "The only other countries where squashes are native that rank in the top 20". But even with that, I don't understand "The only other". The countries that were mentioned before the table are not all countries where squashes are native. Well that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I simply cut "other". HalfGig talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Done

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

An impressive looking article overall. A few points occurred to me:

• You need to be consistent as to whether you use the full species name or the abbreviated form, Cucurbita pepo or C. pepo.

I thought if you spelled it out the first time you could use the short form thereafter. Am I mistaken? HalfGig talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure about this, but having mentioned the five domesticated species in the lead, I would have thought all subsequent mentions in the rest of the article should be of the shortened form, C. pepo for example. This is not currently the case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil." - The subject of this sentence is "The Cucurbita genus" and I doubt you could extract much oil or anything else from a genus!

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• " The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." - Perhaps this sentence could be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph.

Rearranged slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries." - These events are a bit minor for mention in the lead of an article ostensibly about a genus.

Made the sentence more general; celebration of the genus is however demonstrably widespread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomy of the genus, as is seen in the number of species listed, which varies from 13 to 30."= This sentence is rather long and rambling.

tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein." - this sentence requires some explanation or wikilinking.

tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "pollen load" - ditto.

tweaked and rearranged a little. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• In the "History and domestication" section, the first sentence of paragraph 2 has some duplication with the first sentence of paragraph 3.

Removed the sentence from para 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would put the "History and domestication" section near the beginning of the article.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)

• Why are the "Reproductive biology" and "Germination and seedling growth" sections part of the "Description" section?

Should they be their own sections or should we make a new section with them as subsections? HalfGig talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought separate sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking I can get to this later today. HalfGig talk 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "... the original wild specimen was a small round fruit and that the modern pumpkin is its direct descendant." - Maybe "had" rather than "was".

Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Its leaves are 20 to 30 centimeters (7.9 to 11.8 in) wide." -The conversion is a bit over precise.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Leaves have 3–5 lobes and are 20–35 centimeters (7.9–13.8 in) wide." - Ditto.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "All the subspecies, varieties, and cultivars are conspecific and interfertile." - Isn't this a tautology?

Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Pumpkins and pumpkin seeds have high levels of crude protein ..." - This might be true of pumpkin seed but I would doubt it is of pumpkin which is 95% water and contains 1.2% protein according to your infobox.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Because of this bitterness that is especially prevalent in wild Cucurbita, in parts of Mexico the flesh of the fruits is rubbed on a woman's breast to wean children." - This sentence is a bit convoluted.

Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• "... there are occasional reports of cucurbitacin getting into the human food supply and causing illness." - "getting into the human food supply" makes it sound like a contaminant rather than a naturally produced secondary metabolite.

Tweaked. HalfGig talk 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Cucurbits, which are all members of the family Cucurbitaceae, ..." - This information seems redundant.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "For example, cucurbita are often represented in Moche ceramics" - If you use "cucurbita" here it needs to be capitalised and italicised. Otherwise substitute "cucurbits".

Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• That looks good. Now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• (A bit biased) Support (because I worked on it a bit myself) -- comprehensive, well-written, careful... what I expect from a FA. Zad68 03:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (GermanJoe)

• File:Zapallomuseolarco.jpg - this one gave me trouble (low-resolution image), but I found this archived discussion, confirming communication with the museum. This collection of images from museum exhibits is most likely OK, based on information from the museum, that was relayed via OTRS.
• File:Cucurbita_pepo_Cocozelle_fruits.jpg - originally from a different website, but the Flickr-uploader seems to maintain the source website as well (AGF) - OK.
• All other images are clearly CC or PD for various reasons with sufficient source and author information.

Both comments are just for information, all images are OK to use within our guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed look. HalfGig talk 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Will take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I have to say I am not a fan of the intro as it stands currently as it comes over a bit stilted. The first sentence leaves me thinking, "a genus of what?" - I'd also wikilink genus here. I think I'd open with, "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to the Andes and Mesoamerica. Five species are widely grown for their edible fruit, variously known as pumpkin, squash or gourd, and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels." or something like this - it just needs to flow better and be more punchy. I am happy to massage it live,

Feel free. It has probably had rather too much of the committee treatment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is my attempt at rejigging the lead and making it snappier. Let me know what you think.

Looks good. Linked genus. Yes, by all means edit directly as you see fit or post here for us to do it. As for the intro, I've made some changes as you suggest above. Feel free to tweak it or post more suggestions here. HalfGig talk 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its because I do alot of biology articles but I'd move the History and domestication section down the article to after Habitat and distribution - that way it segues nicely into the cultivated stuff, with nutrients etc. coming after.

Done. HalfGig talk 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd put production after History and domestication actually.

Done. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are we comparing production to watermelon production?

So that we can see where cucurbit production stands relative to another common fruit food. If this is a faux paus, it can be removed. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure - I can see the benefits in giving context, so if you guys feel it's useful I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

...is so vast that its various subspecies and cultivars have been misidentified as totally separate species. - needs a ref at the end of the sentence

This had a ref. It was lost in editing, so I found it by going through article history and readded it. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Germination and seedling growth is a subsection of reproductive biology so should be level 3 header.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd expect the distribution and habitat section to have something on the total range, maybe northern and southernmost species and centres of biodiversity of the genus (if possible), not just the few cultivated species

Some of this type of information is in history and domestication section, but I also see your point. I've added it. Please review. This info is spelled out in the Nee (1990) article. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

why the link to Calabaza at the bottom? If it is one to talk about, then a few notes within the general text is better - the article has only 28 kb of prose so can easily be expanded.

Cut HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, am not sure about the Culinary uses section - most of this should be under production above, not human culture, the only exception being the thanksgiving bit which should be moved to festivals.

Split per above, please review because I'm not sure I split it precisely as you intended. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, I think this split overlooks actual culinary uses, i.e. different foods and recipes, regional or not, made from squashes. These items of daily consumption do not fit into production, nor into (annual) festivals. I suggest we put them back into a smaller Culinary uses section. I'll see if I can find some regional variations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chiswick here. It's better with a culinary section. However, the paragraph currently at the bottom of production, that was moved out of culinary, which starts "The Cucurbitaceae family has many species used as ....";....I'm split on whether it should stay where it is now or move back to culinary uses. HalfGig talk 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay - I guess I saw human culture as "culture plus symbolism but not including food as such" but if other folks see it as more inclusive that's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

why is Cucumber in see also bit at bottom?

Cut HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Do we know anything about regional variation that can be added to the Culinary uses section? what preparation is done more than others where....

As I understood your above comment, there is no culinary uses section now. As I understand your question about preparation, I haven't seen anything in what would be suitable source for a featured level article. I shall look around and post back here if I find anything suitable. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added some traditional regional variations from India, France and Italy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I think we're in striking distance but still a few issues to clarify. The prose is pretty good, and the comprehensiveness is okay - a few issues there that need to be looked at - but the structure needs some fine-tuning as above. It's a big article and I have to take another look as I am wondering whether there is some more that should be in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It was only 6K when I started on it back in Aug 2013. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Meh, that's common. Most articles I pick up to buff for FAC grow considerably....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• tentative support - am happy with structure now. Prose is fine. I can't see any glaring gaps in content, hence I can't see any outstanding issues that would bar this article from becoming FA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes

This nom has been open a very long time but my impression is that we might benefit more by seeing this one through than archiving and starting again; that'll depend on how things pan out in the next short while...

• @CorinneSD: do you consider all your comments to have been resolved now?

Yes, I do. Thanks for asking. CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like we still need a source review for formatting/reliability and a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If none of our reviewers above feel comfortable undertaking either of those I'll try Nikkimaria.
• There are quite a few duplicate links in the article. Some might be justified by the space between them but pls review in any case -- vine twice in the lead is certainly unnecessary! You can install this script to highlight the duplicates.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't know about the dupe link tool. I've fixed them now, except for one that shows up because it is linked in a photo caption and the body. I was told this is okay. Thank you for the tip. HalfGig talk 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Ref 10 has an error message missing url.
  • Updated reference. HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd)[3] is a genus of herbaceous vine" I would link herbaceous.
  • Linked. HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• "In 1990, Michael Nee classified them into the following 13 species" There is no explanation of why Nee's scheme is given rather than that of another expert.
  • Nee's system is one of the more recent ones if not the most recent, so it based upon more modern scientific knowledge, he is also a recognized top expert in the Cucurbita field, with his 1990 work being oft-cited. I've added a bit and ref about this. HalfGig talk 19:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• "this pollination requires proper technique." proper does not seem the right word - expert?
  • Changed to "skilled", ok?. HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• "The most critical factors in flowering and fruit set are physiological rather than climatic." I do not understand this. It is stated above that most species require almost continuous water and others tolerate dry conditions. These are climatic factors.
  • Good point. In fact, the cited paper says very little about climatic factors, although they are mentioned in the abstract. I've removed that and clarified what the physiological factors are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Evidence of Cucurbita being domesticated has been found in early archaeological records of native peoples" This seems to say that early native peoples kept archaeological records.
  • I've linked that to Archaeological record, which refers to a body of evidence..." It is what archaeologists have learned from the artifacts they have documented. ". Is this okay or do you have an alternate wording? HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it is better not to refer to the "archaeological record" as it is a controversial theoretical concept. Perhaps something like "Archaeological investigations have found evidence of domestication of Cucurbita going back over 8,000 years."
      • Changed. HalfGig talk 12:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Evolutionarily speaking, the genus is relatively recent in origin" This is vague. 100,000s of years? Millions? If it was in Mexico and more than 3 million years old it presumably originates in the north American continent before it joined up with south America.

Only thousands for the genus, compared to millions for the family. I've added to this effect in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply above and further points.
• The comment about Lagenaria siceraria is a bit obscure. I assume it is no longer regarded as a Cucurbita species, but this is not clear.
  • reworked this sentence. That and Citrullus lanatus are not Cucurbita but are in the same family as Cucurbita, Cucurbitaceae. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Later, more accurate, dating using accelerator mass spectrometers provided more specific dates." What dates? Is 10,000 now ruled out?

It seems so, see the Kubitzki ref and quote. I've changed the 8-10,000 to 'at least 8,000' which fits these sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not so sure the 10000yr mark is gone. So I agree Chiswick's wording is better. I also removed the mass spectrometer sentence. It's not necessary. I thought of rewording it but decided not to. HalfGig talk 12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Although the stems and skins tend to be bitterer than the flesh" Is bitterer a word? I would prefer more bitter.
  • Changed. FYI, according to two online dictionaries 'bitterer' is a word. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• "The only countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native are Cuba, which ranks 14th with 347,082 metric tons, and Argentina, which ranks 17th, with 326,900 metric tons. But it is also native to Mexico which is 7th.
  • Good catch. I added the word "additional", which I'd meant to do way back whenever. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Cucurbits are susceptible to diseases such as bacterial wilt" Cucurbits is piped to Cucurbitaceae. It seems confusing to introduce a new piped synonym for the tribe so late in the article.
  • I added " also cucurbits," into the lede. HalfGig talk 12:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would link xerophytic.
  • That was linked. I must have undone it a few days ago when I was cleaning up duplicate links. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. BTW I think there is an error in the Kubitzki source quoted above. 65MA is the beginning of the Paleocene, long before the Paleocene/Eocene transition and London Clay. Maybe he means 56MA. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. And yes, I think that's what he was referring to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Source check

I have spotchecked the sources, examining all those ending in "2". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• 1. 2 (Tropicos) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  2. 12 (Worldbotanical) - "Musaceae" is mentioned in the source as another example of use of the word "pepo".
  • I think it's best to leave as is, see Musaceae, not even same family. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. 22 (Robinson) - This source hardly supports the statement and could be removed as #21 does do so.
  • Moved to a better spot, two in fact. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. 32 (Sanjur) - This source supports the cladogram.
  2. 42 (Pimenta) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  3. 52 (Holotype) - This source supports the statement it cites but I think "Triloba" should be in italics and not capitalised. This also applies to "Zapallito" and "Zipinka" and the relevant citations need rationalising. I'm not sure about the other varieties as I do not have access to #55.
  • Fixed as I understand what you said. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. 62 (Paris) - As far as I can see, this difficult to read, multi-used source fully supports the statements cited.
  • Yes, it's a key source, he's a cucurbit specialist. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. 72 (Roberts) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  2. 82 (Cutler) - I do not have access to this source.
  3. 92 - (University of Illinois) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  4. 102 (Tallamy) - This source supports the two statements it cites.
  5. 112 (Havelda) - This source does not support the statement it cites as far as I can see. But there are four citations and other sources may support the statement.
  • It's in ref 113. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. 122 (Janick) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  2. 132 (Bean) - I do not have access to this source.
  3. 142 (Jaffrey) - I do not have access to this source.
  4. 152 (Tra Meno) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  5. 162 (Festival) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  6. 172 (Kew) - This source supports the statement it cites.
• In general, I found no instances of close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the sources I inspected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Of the ones that have issues, I will fix them in a few hours. The issues are likely the result of massive copyediting and structure realignments that have gone on with this article. HalfGig talk 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • • NOTE: Some ref numbers changed when I worked this. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • NOTE 2: Cwmhiraeth had already supported the article up above in this FAC and her on her talk page at User_talk:Cwmhiraeth#Cucurbita she says that all concerns in here in her source\paraphrase check have been met. HalfGig talk 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources (formatting / reliability) - OK

• Some references need Template:subscription required, one needs Template:registration required tags. The "External links" tool in the FAC toolbox shows a list of results. Some of those templates can possibly be replaced with actual cite parameters, see the templates' documentation for more info.
  • • OK, I ran this tool and added the tags to the ones it found. HalfGig talk 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Fixed a few minor issues with order of references - OK.
• References are consistently formatted, the article is well-referenced throughout.
• All sources covering scientific information are academic publications and/or written by topic experts.
• I can't really judge the scientific details. Several extensive reviews have already combed through the article (see above), all raised points have been addressed.
• Some references in "Festivals" are a bit more lightweight, but still OK for a folklore section with mostly uncontroversial festival info.

Aside from the first minor cleanup point, no problems found with citations. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you for this input. HalfGig talk 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That was a quick fix, thank you. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • NOTE: GermanJoe has crossed out the image, source, and paraphrasing requests at WT:FAC. This makes two people who have source and paraphrase checks. Thank you! HalfGig talk 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.