Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trade and use of saffron/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) [1].
Trade and use of saffron[edit]
- Notified: Saravask, WP Agriculture, WP Plants, WP Food and drink
- URFA nom
- Talk page noticed January 2015
Review section[edit]
This is a 2006 FA whose main editor is mostly inactive, and that has taken a good deal of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it just need citations, or how much more would there be to this? MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor appears who has access to the sources and is willing to work on the article, I'll do a more thorough review, and list any additional issues noted. The article was well written when it passed FAC, so a diff of changes since FAC could be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what sources are available and get back here with what I can do. A lot of the FA requirements are beyond my patience but sourcing an agriculture trade article is not. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to a university library, so I don't take on improving an article unless someone else can do the sourcing part-- if you can do that, I can help with any other cleanup needed as we go. This is a deliberative process, so keep the page posted, and I'll weigh in to review as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a very readable article compared to when it was a Featured Article. I found the main editor and compared versions from 2007, when he/she was still editing. Simple statements based on sources have been canged to Latinate hemming and hawing; it will be more work than expected, but I will give it a go. I hope you are not a person who disparages a good three letter word when one can find seven three syllable words with Latin roots to obscure meaning. Sometmes "big" is best. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be easier to revert to the featured version, and then compare what changed, and update production stats and anything else that is new? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be more readable. I was going to try that in my sandbox first, then compare paragraphs. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Saravask was a competent writer, so that may be the way to go ... restoration may be painstaking in sandbox, but I submit it will yield a better outcome than trying to fix all the new additions since the FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He/she wrote well in a style that makes you enjoy reading; after posting in my sandbox, I see it even looks beautiful on screen. Sigh. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I misspoke on reverting to the FA version (2006). I see that Saravask last edited it in 2011, so a good version would be found more recently. Which (date?) version are you starting from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He/she wrote well in a style that makes you enjoy reading; after posting in my sandbox, I see it even looks beautiful on screen. Sigh. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Saravask was a competent writer, so that may be the way to go ... restoration may be painstaking in sandbox, but I submit it will yield a better outcome than trying to fix all the new additions since the FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be more readable. I was going to try that in my sandbox first, then compare paragraphs. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be easier to revert to the featured version, and then compare what changed, and update production stats and anything else that is new? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a very readable article compared to when it was a Featured Article. I found the main editor and compared versions from 2007, when he/she was still editing. Simple statements based on sources have been canged to Latinate hemming and hawing; it will be more work than expected, but I will give it a go. I hope you are not a person who disparages a good three letter word when one can find seven three syllable words with Latin roots to obscure meaning. Sometmes "big" is best. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to a university library, so I don't take on improving an article unless someone else can do the sourcing part-- if you can do that, I can help with any other cleanup needed as we go. This is a deliberative process, so keep the page posted, and I'll weigh in to review as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what sources are available and get back here with what I can do. A lot of the FA requirements are beyond my patience but sourcing an agriculture trade article is not. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor appears who has access to the sources and is willing to work on the article, I'll do a more thorough review, and list any additional issues noted. The article was well written when it passed FAC, so a diff of changes since FAC could be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I picked from their last edit in December 2007. They appeared to stay on top of all edits until then. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I missed all the 2011 edits. I picked this edit but will look at the last 2011 one before moving on. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one closer to the FA is better. I will work in sections and be careful with edits. First, reading about the saffron trade! MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK ... did you notice article talk that you're working in sandbox? Ping me when I should have a look. Thanks !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not be working on this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've already left, Micro, and your page is deleted, so I'll say here that I'm really sorry to see you go. Not only because your help here was invaluable, but also because I hate it when bot and bot-operator silliness chases off content contributors. I will go mention on article talk that we lost you ... my best wishes to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not be working on this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone else willing to work on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC; it looked like MicroPaLeo was able to restore the article, but s/he has left Wikipedia, and no one else has taken this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Much as I love our trio of articles on saffron, this one needs quite a bit of work to get it up to current referencing standards for an FA. Maralia (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.