Wikipedia:Peer review/Bhut jolokia/archive1

Bhut jolokia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a good topic and overall an interesting article. I would like to improve the article and bring it to GA stage.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 07:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FriyMan. This is an interesting topic. First the lead probably needs some work so it is a better overview of the article. Do we need all the bolded alternative names? None are mentioned in Etymology. In fact Bhut jolokia is not even in etymology. We generally don't use unencylopaedic sentences like The images on this page show examples of both the rough and the smooth fruit. It would be better to say that they come in rough and smooth and have a accompanying picture demonstrating this. Image captions need some work as they should relate somewhat to the section and tell us something about the plant. Prose in defense could be improved. It is also missing quite a lot of information on the plant itself. Habitat, evolution, varieties, taxonomy, cultivation, pests, diseases, nutritional information and production information are all lacking. While the hotness issue is interesting this is still an article on a crop and needs to cover the typical details found within these types of articles as well. Also the Dorset Naga section seems to fit within the Scoville rating section. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: The article captions definitely need some work. For example, some of the captions use different capitalization for "Bhut jolokia" (like "Bhut jolokia" and "bhut jolokia"). Plus, several of the images in the article gallery do not have any captions; maybe some can be added. Name goes here (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should say what SHU stands for
don't bolden "chili pepper" and "Naga morich" in the lead as neither are the ghost pepper User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ref no. 25 is incomplete and a deadlink, and refs no. 19 and 26 are also incomplete
Internet news sources (like ref no. 30) need an access date parameter, also, though it's not a requirement, I'd recommend that you stay consistent on how you style it (like either use "24 April 2012", "April 24, 2012," "24-4-17," or "4-24-17") User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN
refs no. 6, 10, and 13 are a deadlinks User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the wrong url for ref no. 20 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on the link for ref no. 26 and it came up with a warning that said "site contains malware" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]