Talk:Tomato/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Giving this a review, hopefully better than my last review of your work Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Failing, I don't think the article is close enough to meeting the GACR around sourcing. Some more concerns about vagueness in the subject of the article, although those could be clarified within a seven day period. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, that's ridiculous: all of this could be fixed in a morning or less: I'll do it now. I'd really appreciate if you ever do another one of mine that you contact me first so that we can discuss and evaluate the matter. This is a perfectly worthy article and frankly there's very little wrong with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll sleep on this; I apologise if I have made a mistake. Thanks for the note in the second sentence, I'll take it on. I am generally of the opinion that a fail is harmless when it hasn't been in the queue for long as is the case here, although I understand others don't share this view. I certainly don't think it reflects on you as an editor; I hold you in particularly high esteem. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• Why do you refer to capsicum as "Capsicum peppers"? This appears to be an unusual term for it.
  • Chili pepper it is.

• According to the first sentence of the article, the subject of the article is the berry of the plant. The following two paragraphs appear to primarily be about the plant, constituting 2/3 of the lede. This or the lede should be rewritten to avoid WP:UNDUE, or the subject should be redefined. Leaving this section until addressed.
  • Edited the lead to indicate the article is about the plant, with its berry.

• important ingredients I believe singular is appropriate here, as it is not referring to the range of tomato varieties, but the use of the berry of the plant.
  • Singular it is; I note thatEnglish is happy with either singular or plural in this context, nothing to do with varieties.

• Tomato#Naming should be renamed to include "classification", given the section on its classification as a vegetable or fruit does not pertain to its naming, except in a colloquial sense
  • The 'Botany' chapter has both a 'Phylogeny' section on phylogenetic placement, and a 'Taxonomy' section on the botanical naming of the species.

• who used it to denote a plant that has not been identified worth clarifying that he means this generally, rather than his own difficulty in identifying tomatoes here.
  • Said 'never'.

• The confusion confusion appears to be the incorrect term here, if it is correct, it should be established that this distinction has led to a confusion.
  • Said 'issue'.

• The Pueblo people are thought to have believed that those who witnessed the ingestion of tomato seeds very wordy
  • Edited.

Sourcing

• I have been very unimpressed with Etymonline and it is doubtful that better sources do not address this etymology.
  • It's a perfectly respectable source.

• Page 147 of Furia 1997 doesn't mention tomatoes.
  • Added lyrics ref.

• What makes https://www.tomato-cages.com/ a reliable source?
  • Removed.

• "Why the Tomato Was Feared in Europe for More Than 200 Years" is the source for The first evidence of domestication points to the Aztecs and other peoples in Mesoamerica: "The tomato was eaten by the Aztecs as early as 700 AD and called the “tomatl,”". I doubt it, given when the Aztecs originated. I have also been very unimpressed with Smithsonian Magazine's fact checking around history claims. The author's source for the claim about pewter plates is a book by a gardener who writes for magazines, and published by a publisher who describes themselves as "a leading publisher of step-by-step how-to books for both DIY gardening and home improvement."
  • Sorry to hear it, Smithsonian is basically a reliable source; removed.

• McGee source; I have looked at using this article as a source before, essentially for this claim in a different article, and ended up avoiding it as it makes claims covered by WP:MEDRS, and doesn't meet the standards therein.
  • There are no medical claims here. We can find biochemistry sources if need be.

• The Sophie Coe text should have the date corrected (she died in 1994). Not required for GA, but an author link would be helpful.
  • Added orig-year and link.

• Donnelly 2008 should be removed and the relevant Smith 1994 page should just be cited, given the source just says "According to Andrew Smith’s “The Tomato in America,”" and Smith is cited in the next sentence.
  • Done.

• The sources in the history section in general appear quite old; while Smith is good, it is 30 years old, and more recent literature such as Hoenig 2017 that is available on the Wikipedia Library is not engaged with.
  • The history up to the 19th century is stable; we can look at Hoenig etc but the picture won't change significantly. I'd remind you that GA requires only "the main points", not a comprehensive academic history with details of every historiographic dispute.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.