Talk:Grapefruit
Grapefruit is currently an Agriculture, food and drink good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: Citrus fruit |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grapefruit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Grapefruit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Chiswick Chap, I'm going to tackle this review. A quick review shows this is a good candidate and clearly above the bar of a quickfail. I'll conduct a further review of it and I'll let you know when my first pass of it is complete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Can I recommend that you make a list of your comments and checks here (before the 'Summary') so that GA monitors can see that the review has been thorough? In particular, you need to check that the text is readable, and not plagiarised; that the images are appropriate and properly licensed on Commons; and that the text fairly represents the sources cited (this last is specially important). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Summary
[edit]- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Good use of tables where appropriate to compliment text.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class plant articles
- High-importance plant articles
- WikiProject Plants articles
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles