Wikipedia:Peer review/Lettuce/archive1

Lettuce

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I originally rewrote this article as part of WP:The Core Contest, and have since taken it to GA (thanks in large part to User:Sasata!). I would like to take it to FAC, and so would specifically like comments on completeness, adherence to plant article standards (I've never written one before) and anything else that would potentially trip me up at FAC. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article, and I support it's submisison to FAC. Thanks, Ax1om77

Comments

"Generally grown as a hardy annual, it is easily cultivated..." I thought there was a general rule of thumb that a new para needed us to reintroduce the subject, so "..., lettuce is easily..."

Done. - DB

I'm not sure (and it's probably my ignorance) why you lump lettuce and chicory together in the lead.

Because lettuce and chicory are lumped together by the FAO, so I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't just straight-up lettuce, although the vast majority of it most likely is. - DB

"Lettuce is most often used for salads, although it is also seen in other kinds of food, while one type is grown for its stems which are eaten either raw or cooked." not sure why I'm not keen on this sentence, I think it's the run-on clause and the uber-general "it is also seen in other kinds of food" statement.

Qualified the general statement a bit and split into two sentences. - DB

Consider linking "leafy green" in the lead.

"Leafy green" redirects to "leaf vegetable", which is already linked at the beginning of the lead. Do you still think I should link it? - DB

"The Romans called the plant ... " again new para, perhaps "The Romans referred to lettuce as..."

Done. - DB

"Its native range..." same again, new para. If this isn't conventional, feel free to ignore all these types of comment.

I'm not sure if this is the convention or not, but it sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I've gone through the article and made several tweaks to add subjects to a few paragraphs - see what you think. - DB

" 3 to 4 mm" so far it's been Imperial measures all the way with a conversion, this is metric with no conversion.

During the GA review, User:Sasata said that conversions for measurements this small are basically useless and that he would suggest not adding a conversion. I'm not sure what the standard is on biology FAs? - DB

"Cutting lettuces are generally planted straight into " could use a link or something, as I assume you mean Cutting (plant)?

No, I mean lettuces that are grown to cut individual leaves from, like you see in salad mixes. I've reworded this a bit to hopefully make it more clear. What do you think now? Dana boomer (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bit techy, but could you implement row and col scopes per MOS:DTT on the production table?
Not sure there's a real need to link tomato or orange.

Done - DB

Or, for that matter, salad.

Done - DB

" Salmonella bacteria, including the uncommon Salmonella braenderup type" both links there go to the same article.

Changed this into a redlink to S. braenderup - hopefully an article will be created on it some day! - DB

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, TRM! I believe I have addressed the majority of your comments. I haven't done the row and column scopes on the table yet, as I'm about to be late for work :), but should be able to get to those this evening. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! I believe I have now addressed the final issue, regarding the table. If you see anything else, please let me know, and thanks again for your eyes on this article! Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick prose note - a lot of "centuries" in the first para of lead - might be unavoidable but I suspect reducing repetition would be good for prose....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I have gone through and taken out or reworded a couple of the phrasings, so now there should be only two left. I don't think this is too many? Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]