Talk:Mango
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mango article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Mango is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Mango 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated in one or more external publications. Since these publication(s) copied Wikipedia, rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mango/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: PeriodicEditor (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking on this review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have completed the review, however before it can pass, some sourcing issues must be fixed. PeriodicEditor (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- PeriodicEditor - I think we're complete here now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have completed the review, however before it can pass, some sourcing issues must be fixed. PeriodicEditor (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
GA review
Last updated: 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC) by PeriodicEditor
See what the criteria are and what they are not
1) Well-written
1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- 1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
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
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)
- 2c) it contains no original research
- 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3) Broad in its coverage
- 3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- 3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4) Neutral:
- 4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5) Stable:
- 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
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
- 6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Overall: 
Comments:
- I have identified that this website has very similar content, however, I believe it is WP:BACKWARDSCOPY due to it being most similar to a version that predates it.
- That is proof that they copied us.
- Some sources, which I have tagged, do not support the claims and need replacing before the article can pass.
Sources spot check | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
All sources are from this version so may not be the latest version.
|
Drive-by
Hi! I noticed this one. Thanks for working at this article. Is it possible to expand and add 3rd paragraph at the lead? Is it possible to move also all the citations from lead to the body of the article? Thank you. ~2026-15168-38 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, since the lead is an introduction, so not sure the entomology section would fit their. Why do you want the citations moved? PeriodicEditor (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have removed citations for statements repeated later on in the article PeriodicEditor (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2026 (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.