Talk:Radish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Radish was one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Some sentences need to reworded
Although sourced properly, a significant portion of this article is copied verbatim from the NY Times source. As a result, the verbatim sentences either need quotation marks around them or need to be reworded. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Negative calories?
Is it true that radishes have negative calories -- that the energy it takes to digest them is greater than that which they contain? -- Tarquin
- There's a list of alleged negative-calorie foods, including the radish, at http://www.weight.addr.com/NegativeCalorieFoods.html. However, there are some weasel words such as 'possibly' and 'could ultimately be interpreted as ... fat loss'. A cynic might think that this concept is just a way of selling the diet books advertised on the web page. The suggested diet includes the command "No junk food!", which if obeyed would probably outweigh any benefit provided by radishes etc. Heron
- THose can't possible ALL be neg-calorie foods -- otherwise, people in the days pre-junk food would have all died! ;-) -- Tarquin
- Perhaps people use to eat the fats from animals and the negative calorie foods would cancel it out. They were certainly a lot healthier and thinner than the people (post?)-junk food. I couldn't access the site but I do know that eggs, celery and carrot are supposedly negative calories. Hopefully, you've found some more reputable sites on negative calories. If you have, please post them here. Bec7666
- Negative calories: It's hard to measure calorie expenditure while digesting, however Neal Barnard, MD in his book Foods that cause you to lose weight list twenty negative calorie foods. His explanation is along the line that foods high in fibre use more energy to digest than low-fibre foods (like meat and fish and processed foods). According to him, "negative-calorie" foods do not use up more energy digesting than they contain, but they do use more calories digesting than other lower fibre foods, so fewer calories are available for fat storage. He says that for every 100 calories of carbohydrate the body tries to turn into fat, 23 calories are lost in the process leaving only 77 calories to be stored instead of 100. Of course, all of the negative calorie foods have to be eaten without added fat for this to work. BTW most of the lists I've seen on the web, don't list any veg protein. Barnard lists the following: black beans, kidney beans and lentils. One site lists several fish, but further checking on the web revealed the original site just included these as low-fat sources of protein, not negative calorie foods. Basically, most low fat, high fibre fruits and vegetables that are eaten close to their natural state (not juiced and cooked without fat) can be considered "negative-calorie" foods. hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.237.246 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps people use to eat the fats from animals and the negative calorie foods would cancel it out. They were certainly a lot healthier and thinner than the people (post?)-junk food. I couldn't access the site but I do know that eggs, celery and carrot are supposedly negative calories. Hopefully, you've found some more reputable sites on negative calories. If you have, please post them here. Bec7666
- THose can't possible ALL be neg-calorie foods -- otherwise, people in the days pre-junk food would have all died! ;-) -- Tarquin
Chemicals?
French "raifort"
PH
Is this vandalism or just an odd description?
Uh, water anyone?
Yellow radishes
Agronomic radishes
Radish Tops/Greens' Name
Varieties of radishes
radish seeds for agro fuel
image caption
They're hot when you eat them
The many names of the radish
Radishes as medicine
Link to German page is wrong
Origin of the radish
Excised hogswallop
Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- 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) 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);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Result
Discussion
Thank you for undertaking this review. I will trim the "Uses" section a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Additional notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Radish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
