Talk:Bitter orange/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) 15:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 02:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Chiswick Chap: I'll be reviewing the article for the January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. BigChrisKenney (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Intro

"...and the wild type mandarin..."

• Does the word 'type' need to be here?
  • Yes, "wild type" is the thing here, we're not talking about trees run wild.

Definition

Good!

History

"The bitter orange, like many cultivated Citrus species, is a hybrid, in its case of the wild mandarin and pomelo."

• This sentence seems a bit clunky towards the end. Could it be re-written as: "The bitter orange, like many cultivated Citrus species, is a hybrid between a wild mandarin and pomelo."
  • Hm, that would say that many species were hybrids of those two, which is half-true; instead, many species are hybrids, and in this particular case it's of those two.

Botany

Added some links you may wish to review.

• • All good.

Uses

I made a few edits you may wish to review.

• Edited.

Drug interactions

Good!

Initial assessment

All in all, it is my opinion that very few changes need to be made to get this article to GA status. The article is well referenced, to the point, with no fluff. I will await your reply before posting my final assessment. BigChrisKenney (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources

11 does not mention 'Citrus myrtifolia' nor 'Chinotto'. I think the content should be removed or a new source be found.

Added ref and archive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Other sources look good. BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Final Assessment

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall: Pass/Fail:

Congratulations on another GA! BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2025 (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.