Talk:Lemon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lemon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Lemon has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 27, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 29, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Why

why is there nothing on the uses of lemon juice in skin care? 2001:8003:1620:6700:BD1D:F314:7703:8AF0 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The goal is to cover "the main points". This does seem to be a minor use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Stivushka (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lemon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 04:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started review

Again many thanks for taking this on so promptly. I look forward to working together with you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened GA review following spot check. Will go through article again carefully. I have already fixed some links. Will check rest with fine-tooth comb. Stivushka (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written. Article has a nice flow and is easy to understand.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fully complies. Layout is also consistent with similar GA class articles on similar subjects(fruits, crops, agriculture, horticulture and the like).
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Confirmed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A high proportion of the citations are from websites. This is acceptable but in the long run it will likely create a high maintenance workload if article is to be maintained at GA standard - For information onlyStivushka (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Issues with refs fixed (see text below table).Stivushka (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers everything from science to history to the arts … as they relate to lemons. It’s difficult with such a ubiquitous fruit but I think the article does a good job.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think the article is exactly the right blend of history, taxonomy, art and culture.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images support the article well. Diagrams add value particularly in sections dealing with taxonomy.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well researched and written article. Article covers the lemon from its taxonomy, its history, its uses and its cultural impact. Following edits, agreed between nominator and reviewer, and some relatively minor fixes (documented in the text below) the article meets criteria for GA.Stivushka (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ref No. 18 links to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. The information supporting the text is there, but it requires the user to use the software to plot the chart. If this is the only source, I will approve but it would be better if the data came up immediately when link accessed.Stivushka (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would be nice if there were a way to install a permalink to the search, but nobody seems to have found a way to do that in FAOSTAT's case. This applies to all agricultural product articles, not just the few that I've edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, this is a fair point. Accepted. Stivushka (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already corrected a number of refs. The following are the outstanding refs to be reviewed:

Ref 2 – Used once. Currently 19 pages. Can page range be narrowed?
- I've narrowed the range for you but this is a single chapter and it's normal to cite like this in science articles.

Ref 5 – Page referenced seems unrelated to subject. Please check. Ref can be removed if needed as there is already another cite.
- Yes, done.

Ref 54 “Post-Modernism, Economics and Knowledge” – Does not appear to support the text
- Replaced ref.

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.