Talk:Pear/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 17:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Vanamonde93, great to hear you again! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Upon a quick read, Chiswick Chap, I must say this is more than a little off of your usual standard. As most of this isn't your writing, I wonder if you would prefer to work on this outside the GA process? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm quite used to working through issues with GA reviewers. I'll rework the article in line with the tenor of your comments (and the specifics mentioned) tomorrow (Friday) and come back to you then for a second pass, i.e. semi-offline, no need to close the GA just yet. The article is not especially long so I expect a few hours' work will see it more to your liking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
- Opening paragraph has grammatic and scientific difficulties; pears grow on trees in the first sentence, but on shrubs in the second; are a singular species in the second sentence, but multiple in the third; in the second paragraph, pear tree wood is again a singular.
- Fixed.
- Opening paragraph of "description" is similarly broken; maybe a half-sentence gone missing? Also this information should be in "distribution".
- Fixed.
- The "in culture" section is relying heavily on primary sources; also, certainly there are far more mentions than that!
- .................
- I see several papers about pear diseases; we can add something, surely!
- .................
Spotchecks
Numbering as per this version.
- [1]: Okay as to verifiability but a bit close on the wording] : "ultimately from an unknown source, possibly Semitic, or a lost Mediterranean language" should be rephrased
- Edited.
- [2]: I don't see how this is supported
- Statement is true but not useful (WP:NOTDICT), removed.
- [5]: source says "distributed in Europe, temperate Asia, and the mountainous areas of northern Africa [...] Many [...] species are native to Asia", which is not quite what the article says
- Edited.
- [7ab]: strikes me as unnecessary, only refers to a single species, so cannot be used here. Does not support the content.
- Removed.
- [8]: information as to height again refers only to a single species
- Replacing source for height; source otherwise covers whole genus.
- [15]: refers again to a single species.
- I think this one is ok, as it names the species.