Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cabbage/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Cabbage edit

Cabbage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC), User:Sasata[reply]

Sasata and I are nominating this article after working on it for the past couple of years, in an effort to get another major vegetable article up to featured quality. It went through a GA review in 2012, and Sasata and I (mainly Sasata!) have spent more time buffing it this year. At this point, we believe it's ready for a run at FAC. We look forward to your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images the photos all have seem to be freely licensed.HalfGig (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd round the inches in the Description section as these are all ballpark numbers in cm as well. convert templates often of limited use....

Support: Thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: the article is in pretty good shape overall and I think it's FA worthy. But I did have a few concerns:
  • "Cabbage (Brassica oleracea or variants) is a leafy green biennial, grown as an annual vegetable for its dense-leaved heads": I think the opening statement is mildly terse and could be clarified. Thus: biennial plant ... annual vegetable crop.
  • "...cabbage and other brassicas (these plants are combined by the FAO for reporting purposes) for...": currently the parenthetical text disrupts the flow.
  • I've removed this (detail retained for article proper). Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed wording – better? Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an illustration of the cabbage flower suitable for presentation in the Description section? A picture of the wild cabbage would be helpful as well.
  • I've added a picture of the inflorescence. Will see if there's a nice image of the wild cabbage (and a way to make it fit). Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Factors that result... that result ...": please fix the double use.
  • Among the references, there's some inconsistency in the layout of the author lists. For example, "Delahaut, K. A. and Newenhouse, A. C" compared to "Becker, Robert F.; Bjorkmann, Thomas". The same issue exists in the "Cited literature" section.
  • Fixed these (sources with only two authors should now be separated by "and"). Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few other instances of repeated wording, but I think I have most of those addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments; let us know if there's more fixes. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is a highly Eurocentric article. China and India produce over 60% of the world's crop, yet the article is all about the West. From the history ("a favorite vegetable of Australians") to the illness ("Two outbreaks of E. coli in the United States") to medicinal use ("In the United States, cabbage has been used as a hangover cure"), there are several trivial anecdotes about the vegetable in the West. On the other hand, of the major producers, India is not mentioned once (apart from the table) and China maybe once (bean curd).

There needs to be a more global view on the subject; in particular I think it is very important to note how a crop from Europe came to become so popular in China and India, and the story of how it is grown there, etc.—indopug (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. As the article explains, most of the cabbage grown in China is Chinese cabbage (but the FAO lumps several Brassicas together for reporting purposes), so the subject of this article is not as popular there as a cursory examination of the numbers indicate. We'll try to redress the balance in other sections. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, after consultation with my co-nominator, we have independently concluded that the balance of the article accurately reflects the sources we have used. I've tried in vain to find useable mentions of cabbage in China that aren't about Brassica rapa. Have added a few bits about cabbage production/use in India, and medicinal use in Egypt. If there is anything specific you think is missing that is discussed in a RS you know about, we'd be happy to consider including it. Sasata (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose. A Google Books search for "cabbage india" turns up quite a bit though. This and this, at the first glance, especially seem useful.
I've made the same Google books search, but failed to turn up much that I could add. The first book you give is not available to purchase from Amazon, nor at the publisher themselves! The second has some history that is more or less already included in the article. I've since added a few bits about Indian cabbage history from other sources; please have a look and see if the balance is more to your satisfaction. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any indication whatsoever about the percent of regular cabbage grown in China? Then maybe you can concentrate on that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked but not turned up anything. It seems that China does not report their output stats to the FAO, and these numbers are estimates. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor: in that table, just write out the country names (and just China should suffice). There's no need of either the flags or the links.—indopug (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Agriculture in xxx" links are useful and relevant to this article, so I've left them in. Shortened PRC to China. Left the flags in for now—I can't really tell from MOS:FLAG if they're appropriate or not, but will not complain if someone else removes them. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT All concerns addressed. reviewing. I do not share the concerns of the editor above, as cabbage is oleracea and the Chinese varities are rapa. Plus it looks like you have addressed his/her concerns. But I do see a few tweaks that may improve the article:

  • One redirect to fix: White cabbage (redirect page) --> Cabbage FIXED
  • Ran citation bot and it may have flagged a couple things, check it here my eyes can't tell if there's anything major in there or not. Reflinks passed 100% OK
  • Looked through it and don't see anything... Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Taxonomy and etymology section, it reads a bit awkwardly in the second paragraph, simply because the word "cabbage" appears too many times, perhaps you can streamline that a bit? FIXED
  • The sentences beginning, ""Cabbage" was originally used to refer to multiple.." and ""Cabbage" is also a part of common names for several unrelated species. These include..." in the middle and at the end of the second paragraph (which is otherwise on etymology) would make better sense in the first paragraph (discussing varieties) or, perhaps, their owb paragraph in-between the two. At any rate, the section is a bit klunky and needs to be polished up a bit. FIXED
  • I did a bit of work in this section, rearranging and trying to remove some of the usages of "cabbage", and I think Sasata took a couple out too. Any better? Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section: Curious if your source literally stated "summer wheat" - and if it's an alternative name for something like buckwheat or a bread wheat of some form (one google search hinted at this, most google hits just had to do with beer brewing...)? Can you verify the material, seeing as how it's in hardcopy? I've heard of spring wheat and winter wheat but not summer wheat. Also, if your source gave a date for domestication of these other crops - seems odd to pick wheat, which is extremely ancient, the wheat article you link indicates that particularly einkorn goes back to 8000 BC or so, way farther than 1000 BC; peas are a little closer in the timeline. May want to clean that up a bit. Fixed
  • The source specifically says summer wheat. The quote is "the crop was almost certainly a late domesticate compared to the primary domesticates of the Near East center such as summer wheat, barley, pea and lentil." Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Any other sources on this topic that would serve as a cross-check? There is about a 5000 year span there, I guess it's not a big deal and I won't withhold support over this, but given that you wikilink to wheat, and that article contains no mention of "summer" wheat, may want to either just say "wheat" or maybe see if there is a specific intent to refer to something like the types of wheat used for bread flower or beer-brewing (which, I think, are the later varieties, and some wheat beers are called "Summer" beer... but don't want to go into OR land)
  • Wonder if the bit on the Guinness Book of World Records should be in history or under cultivation? not a big deal.
  • Under cultivation problems, is it appropriate to discuss solutions, or is that too "how-to" for a plant article? Addressed, OK
  • I think it's getting into a bit "how-to", which is something we really need to stay away from to avoid sounding like a seed catalog. Plus, there are so many different solutions to a lot of these that it would start being a laundry list. Personally, I think it's better to just link the problems and let those articles give additional information, if available. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just made an edit to the Production section that I think makes it flow better, revert and ducuss if it didn't help. Too many (parentheses) make for awkward reading. You may want to do a bit of a hunt and destroy elsewhere in the article, but that was the spot that jumped out at me as "too much." OK
  • I removed at least one other set that I found, and your edits look good. I think everything that's left is either alternate naming or conversions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you wikilink "Field packing"? That's a jargon-y term outside of horticulture. Perfect.--MTBW
  • I'm not convinced the term needs its own article, so I've instead reworded the sentence so it should be self-explanatory. Sasata (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culinary use section: "Cabbage is used in many ways, ranging from eating raw and simple steaming to pickling,... is a little awkward, can you smooth out the prose a bit? Also wikilink salt beef? Also awkwardly phrased is: "... It is one of the main food crops, and sauerkraut is a frequent dish, as well as being used to stuff other dishes..." FIXED
  • These spots of rough prose have been smoothed. Salt beef w'linked. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the bit on consumption statistics should start the beginning of the section instead of being buried after the recipes... FIXED
  • Might want to rename "Cited Literature" to "Cited Works" or "Works Cited." Unless, of course, this is the common layout for a plant article.

That's all I see. Nothing not fixable. Montanabw(talk) 06:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good work so far, will check in again when you've had a chance to look at the other reviewer's comments too. Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Follow up I'm happy, will now SUPPORT, and added in boldface at the beginning of my comments Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do not agree with Indopug as Chinese cabbage is a different species and the article article already explains about them being lumped together for reporting. I think this is an excellent article. HalfGig (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review & support! Sasata (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell edit

I'm excited to see this as a FAC. It can be a bit depressing to see the current state of articles on important food plants like Scallion or Coriander. This article is miles ahead of those, which is gratifying; still, there are a number of issues that will need to be resolved before I can support it for FA status. Some should be rather easy to handle, but others will require more work. – Quadell (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check: All the images are either in the public domain or are released under a free license, and all required information is present. All images are relevant and used appropriately.
  • Spotchecks: References 5, 8, 18, 28, 41, 51, and 61 all fully support the statement they source without any plagiarism.
  • When reading the "Medicinal lore" section, the reader naturally wonders if any scientific evidence backs up any of these remedies (especially those in the final paragraph). Have any studies been done? (Of possible interest: this, this, this, and especially this.)
  • The second and fourth sources you give aren't really appropriate as they are primary studies and not compatible with WP:MEDRS for medical claims, but the first is a good recent review, and I've added a summary sentence here. The other is a review, but older; will read soon and see what I can add. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the difficulty when discussing natural remedies: it's always easier to find a RS saying "X has been used to treat Y" than one saying "X has been shown effective/ineffective at treating Y". In the end, we're limited to the sources we have. Still, it's worth finding everything we can. – Quadell (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After considerable deliberation, I've decided not to cite the 1983 review article. WP:MEDDATE advises us to stick to sources that are less than 5 (preferably 3) years old. Much of the paper is devoted to summarizing anticarcinogenic effects demonstrated in primary studies on cell cultures and animal models. Summarizing, they suggest that results are interesting and need further investigation, but they don't make any definitive conclusions about benefits to human health. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then, and I've inserted a 2009 review which essentially concludes the same thing! Also, much of the relevant research involves cruciferous vegetables in general, rather than cabbage specifically, so I get the feeling that a more extensive summary of this research would be more appropriate at a higher level article (perhaps Cruciferous vegetables). That being said, if you think I've missed an important point that should go in the article, I'd (we'd) be happy to consider including it. Sasata (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's important that we have as much of a solid, reliable summary of the state of knowledge as possible. As more research is done, it will be important to keep this updated. Thanks for carefully inspecting it and the available sources, to make sure nothing major is missing. (By the way, I reparagraphed that section where the break felt more natural to me.) – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved items

(I have left the image check and spotchecks outside this collapsible box, for the benefit of other reviewers.)

  • (Spotcheck exception): But reference 52 is a dead link.
  • I've put in an archived url to cover this. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reader, I'm curious whether the first two paragraphs of "Description" refer to all varieties of Brassica oleracea (kale, broccoli, etc.), or just cabbage. If the former, it would be useful to include something like "Like all [or most] B. oleracea varieties," so the reader knows what is specifically a description of the cabbage plant.
  • The description section was derived from sources describing the cabbage specifically. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what general features are shared with other B. oleracea varieties, although I image that some, e.g. the structure of the flowers, is the same or similar. I think this sort of comparative information would be best situated at the Brassica oleracea article. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that will be an opportunity for improvement once the other B. oleracea articles improve. But it's not an impediment to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the article omits the serial comma, though the penultimate sentence in the lead uses one. Also, the sentence in "Cultivation problems" beginning "Rhizoctonia solani causes..." uses a serial comma. You should either always use them or always omit them.
  • Removed these two and will look for more. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "history" section seems a little slim. At least one of the sources you use (Aggie Horticulture) gives more extensive information about the history of cabbage, as does this 1827 book (pp. 91-101). Is there valuable material in these sources (or others in your possession) that could give more extensive, relevant information about the history of cabbage?
  • I've extracted some tidbits from these sources (and others), and added them to the article. I don't think there's a lot more to be said; one authoritative, scholarly source I've used (Dixon, 2007), has an extensive chapter titled "Origins and diversity of Brassica and its relatives", but there's little about headed cabbage that's not already in the article. Sasata (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I just wanted to make sure it's reasonably complete. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the lead says "...although Chinese cabbage is the most popular form of the vegetable in that country", that could be misleading, since b. rapa is not a form of b. oleracea. It's not inaccurate, since you did state that we were discussing all brassicas, but it would still be helpful to say "the most popular brassica vegetable" instead.
  • Good point, fixed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear what "earlier varieties" means in the first paragraph of "Description". (The terms "early" and "late varieties" are used again in the "Cultivation" section, and there one can determine from context what is meant. Still, it would be better to explain the difference in "Description".)
  • I reworded this to the more self-explanatory "fast-growing, earlier-maturing varieties", leaving the more precise definitions to the cultivation section (where I think it belongs). Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the caption "Inflorescence" could be improved. (It's a single word that most readers won't know.)
  • I think "The transitional from a juvenile to adult state" should instead be "The transition from a juvenile to adult state".
  • The opening "Bacterial diseases include black rot," indicates that a list is coming, but of course discussion of black rot is more than enough to fill a good sentence. Personally I would reword it as "One of the most common bacterial diseases to affect cabbage is black rot,".
  • In that same paragraph, a sentence begins "A parasitic disease downy mildew, caused by the oomycete Peronospora parasitica, produces..." This feels wrong to me. You could just switch the "A" to "The", and that would work, but I think it would scan better as "Downy mildew, a parasitic disease caused by the oomycete Peronospora parasitica, produces..."
  • When you say "often confused with the fungal powdery mildew", I think you mean "often confused with the fungal disease powdery mildew."
  • A comma is needed after "which produced 46 percent of the world total".
  • "sauerkraut is a frequent dish, as well as being used to stuff" is an awkward phrasing. How about this? "sauerkraut is a frequent dish, either eaten on its own or used to stuff"
  • The "Medicinal lore" section uses an unspaced en dash, where WP:MOSDASH recommends either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
  • Allotting four good-sized sentences in "Taxonomy and etymology" to various (minor) slang uses for the word "cabbage" constitutes a ballance issue. It's not directly related to the taxonomy or etymology of "cabbage".
  • Trimmed two sentences about slang use. Sasata (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the sentence: "Cabbage is used in many ways, ranging from eating raw and simple steaming to pickling, stewing, sauteing or braising." I think this should be reworded. One natural phrasing would be: "Cabbage is prepared and consumed in many ways. The simplest options include eating the vegetable raw or steaming it, though many cuisines pickle, stew, saute or braise cabbage." (I'm not insisting on this wording, of course, but I think the sentence does need to be improved.)
  • Sounds good to me, reworded as suggested. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph says that cabbage is "used" six times, with an additional reference to its "use". It's an odd verb to use here, and at least in some cases it could be replaced (e.g. "In India and Ethiopia, cabbage is often included in spicy salads and braises.") And I'm not sure what "fresh market use" is in the U.S.
  • Replaced all instances of "fresh market" with "market", and reduced by half the occurrence of use/used in that section. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of "Taxonomy and etymology" mention other species referred to as "cabbage" in some form. It seems to me that this would be a natural place to discuss "Chinese cabbage". (It's certainly more notable than cabbage bark or cabbage palm, and discussing the difference here may address indopug's concerns above.)
Good stuff. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "Plants are generally started in protected locations early in the growing season before being transplanted outside", sourced to an article on gardening, and I'm sure that's true for cabbages grown in backyard gardens. But most cabbage is grown in massive farms, like the one pictured. Are those generally started in protected locations and transplanted? If not, it isn't correct to say this is "generally" what happens.
  • From what I can find, transplanting is also frequently used on the large farms. One source (paraphrasing here), says that while direct seeding is sometimes cheaper, transplanting gives a more uniform field appearance (no spots that didn't germinate) and maturity (can transplant everything that germinated within a small window, rather than having field-germinated plants ranging over a wider window). Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of countries in "Production", I think it would be an improvement to link to Agriculture in China, Agriculture in Poland, etc., rather than the country name. (After all, WP:OVERLINK advises against linking to major geographic locations in most cases, and I think the individual agriculture articles are more relevant.)
  • I've added a few links to these in the text (thanks–didn't know these article existed!), but am not sure how to do it with the flag templates in the table ... Dana? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't seen that you were using flag templates. Those are complicated templates to unpack and alter. You could omit the flags and just say '''[[Agriculture in Poland|Poland]]''', which would be simplest, or you could each flag image manually... – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've switched to non-linking flag templates and linked these countries to their respective agriculture articles. Looks like we need articles on agriculture in Korea and the Ukraine; the absence of the latter is surprising, considering its "powerhouse" stature (according to our article on the country). Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(That looks like a great DYK opportunity for someone.) Great, I think that's an improvement. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say Russians consume "20 kilograms (44 lb) [of cabbage] per capita", I assume that's annually, but the article doesn't say.
  • Yes, annually. I've amended this in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Works cited" section does not contain all the works that are cited. Many works cited are listed instead in the "References" section. I know, a lot of people like to have books directly in "References" unless they are cited more than once, because it's easier, but it doesn't look as consistent or professional (in my view) to have some books listed inline and others at the end. Shouldn't a "Works cited" section contain all the cited works?
    • Comment' from another reviewer:I've often seen only books in a cited works section, as the need is to cite to individual page numbers, while the web sources can be simpler refs. In fact, you may want to look at one of my recent FAs, William Robinson Brown, where that is exactly what we did. --Montanabw
      • I agree that it would be great to include all books in the "cited works" (perhaps renamed "bibliography"), with web sources and journal entries directly in the refs. But the trouble is, there are many books in the refs. – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Books used more than once are listed in the Works cited section, which is a pretty common way of doing things. It strikes a good balance between not cluttering the References with a bunch of duplicated information and not cluttering the Works cited section with a bunch of random books that are only used to cite one particular minor thing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, it's not a requirement. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wien and Wurr book has page numbers listed in the "Works cited", with more specific pages listed in the references. But other books (many of which only mention cabbage in a small section) do not have pages listed in the "Works cited" section. I think it would be best to be consistent here.
  • Similarly, are most cabbages (the ones grown on huge farms) "harvested by cutting the stalk just below the bottom leaves with a knife"? The "Production" section indicates that mechanical harvesting is common.
  • Would "with a blade" work better? Mechanical harvesters also cut... Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an elegant solution. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a thorough, complete, and well-written article. It deserves featured status. – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(End of Quadell's review)

Source review - adding on to what's noted by Quadell above

  • Now linked to archived url. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (singing "H, I, J, K...") Check alphabetization of Works cited
  • Be consistent in how volume numbers are treated for book sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was quite surprised that the article doesn't mention, even in passing, the Triangle of U. It's certainly not something that needs to be covered in depth, as there's a separate article on the Triangle, of course, but if it were up to me I'd probably mention it. RomanSpa (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added "According to the triangle of U theory of the evolution and relationships between Brassica species, cabbage and other closely related kale vegetables (kale, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cauliflower) represent one of three ancestral lines from which all other brassicas originated." Thanks for your comment. Sasata (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some issues about the correct use of the ICN and the ICNCP. As with many vegetable crops, the sources often don't use these codes correctly, so it's not easy to do so here, but in WP:PLANTS we have usually tried to follow the codes if possible.

  • In the cultivar box, there is text like "White cabbage (capitata var. alba L.)". It's wrong to write an epithet without a preceding genus name; you might think this is supposed to be B. capitata var. alba, but capitata seems to be a varietal epithet, so this doesn't make sense. It needs sorting.
  • You are correct in that the sources we used do not present this information consistently. I am unknowledgeable about the conventions of the ICNCP, and would appreciate any assistance in getting this correct, and our articles on these cultivars are inconsistent. Using Dixon (2007) as a source, I've changed to the following:
White cabbage (B. oleracea L. var. capitata L. f. alba DC.)
Red cabbage (B. oleracea L. var. capitata L. f. rubra (L.) Thell)
Savoy cabbage (B. oleracea L. var. sabauda L.)
But I don't know if there have been recent changes in the rules that renders these names obsolete. Advice? Sasata (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex subject. The tendency now is to use the ICNCP, i.e. cultivar Groups and cultivars, to name cultivated varieties that in the past were given Latin names according to the IC(B)N. However, as I noted above, because reliable sources don't (yet) use the ICNCP correctly for many vegetables (ornamental plants are generally much better), it's hard to do so in Wikipedia. I'm therefore happy with the way you've fixed it. (Just for the record, strictly speaking when giving the name of a plant rather than its classification the ICN says that only one infraspecific epithet should be used, i.e. the name of the plant classified as B. oleracea var. capitata f. alba is B. oleracea f. alba – the varietal epithet has to be unique within the species. But in the cultivar box the classification is fine in my view.)
  • "Variety" is a tricky word in the context of a plant article. In something like "Many shapes, colors and leaf textures are found in various cabbage varieties", what seems to be meant is "cultivars". If this word is too technical, then write "... in various cultivated varieties of cabbage". When there are Latin var. epithets mentioned in the article, just saying "varieties" isn't clear enough, in my view.
  • I've changed this occurrence and a few others. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cultivars section says that there are several cultivars of cabbage, each including many varieties. This can't be correct. The ICNCP defines a cultivar as being "distinct, uniform and stable" in its characters, so there shouldn't be "varieties" within a cultivar. Perhaps "cultivar Group" and then "cultivar" is meant.

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical ref issue Apologies for not being clear as to what I think is the problem with this bit: "It [cabbage] is a cruciferous vegetable, and has been shown to reduce the risk of some cancers, especially those in the colorectal group." + the Verkerk et al. (2009) reference. Section 5 of this paper (S240ff.) does review cruciferous vegetables in general, but not specifically cabbage. The only individual vegetable mentioned in Table 3 is broccoli and in Table 4 cabbage is not included. So I don't accept that the reference supports precisely what is written. What the paper shows for humans is that consumption of cruciferous vegetables in general has been shown to correlate with reduced risk of some cancers, especially those in the colorectal group, although not specifically the consumption of cabbage, which was not included in the intervention studies. Look at the conclusion in 5.6 (S247). This is considerably more nuanced that the article: "have the potential to reduce colon cancer risk" and "A question still arises over the concentration of ITCs required to exhibit their anticarcinogenic effects without themselves becoming genotoxic." Peter coxhead (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank-you for more specifically delineating your concern. I have swapped for another review article that specifically mentions cabbage in this context, and deliberately weakened the claim made in the article text in this edit. Does this seem satisfactory? Sasata (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine to me now. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the later sections of the article:

  • "Pickling is one of the most popular ways of preserving cabbage, creating dishes such as sauerkraut and kimchee,[16] although kimchee is more often made from Chinese cabbage (B. rapa)." Is this meant to imply that Chinese cabbage is not actually cabbage? If not, I don't understand why a contrast is being set up with "although".
  • "Cabbage consumption varies widely around the world..." Two problems with this sentence: First, it's not clear if "Russians" means "people in Russia" or "people who consider themselves to be Russian". Second, the phrasing seems to imply that America is in Europe...? Also, mostly out of curiosity, where is China? There's like a trillion people there munching on kimchee, don't they at least beat out the Spaniards?
In response to these two points, there's a classic problem here resulting from the article being at the English name, "cabbage", rather than the scientific name, "Brassica oleracea". Not all the vegetables whose English names include "cabbage" are B. oleracea. In particular, "Chinese cabbage" is B. rapa, a different species. So, yes, as it explains in the somewhat oddly named Taxonomy and etymology section, Chinese cabbage is not actually cabbage. However, this does point out another problem, which is that there aren't any statistics for "true" cabbage production; the table in Cabbage#Production is for a variety of Brassica cultivars. So it's not clear to me what evidence there is for "true" cabbage consumption around the world. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Outside comment) I'm not sure reliable statistics exist for cabbage consumption specifically. The lead describes "world production of cabbage and other brassicas" lumped together, and the "Production" section similarly lumps all brassicas together. It's relevant information, but it's not as useful as cabbage-specific statistics would be. Still, the article can't claim what the sources don't say... – Quadell (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this sentence like so to hopefully clarify the potentially ambiguous wording. Sasata (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientific evidence suggests that..." This phrasing seems a bit unusual. Why not "studies suggest"?
  • "This is possibly due to the glucosinolates found in cole crops, which serve as metabolic detoxicants" The what and the huh? No wikilinks in this very jargon-heavy sentence.
  • In an attempt to clarify, I've rewritten this to say "This is possibly due to the glucosinolates found in cole crops, which stimulate the production of detoxifying enzymes that remove carcinogens created during metabolism". Glucosinolate has already been linked in the final paragraph of the previous section. Sasata (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which in other vegetables have been proven to have anti-carcinogenic properties." I highly doubt that any nutritionist would ever claim to have "proven" something. I suggest swapping this out for "shown".
  • Regarding the Food-borne illness suggestion: Do countries other than the US exist?
  • I have looked around for other cases of food-borne illness traced directly to cabbage, but it seems that the US cases are the only ones reported in the literature. Will keep searching ... Sasata (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking for the past couple of days but have not turned up any non-US cases that are specific to cabbage. Sasata (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he suggested that women could prevent diseases in their private parts" Surely there are more encyclopedic phrases that could be used than "private parts", no? We aren't writing a children's book here.
  • Can you suggest an alternative? Our article on the subject is called intimate parts, but that phrase seemed a bit dorky to me. Sasata (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping that the source would be a bit more unambiguous about it, but the author also uses the silly phrase "private parts", which could conceivably refer to the vagina, anus, breasts, or any combination thereof. The other issue I've noticed: the article claims that the cabbage urine will prevent diseases of the private parts, whereas the source is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the cabbage urine will prevent all diseases or just private part diseases. With these two things in mind, I believe the best solution is simply to delete the words "in their private parts" from the article, unless a second source can be found which clarifies the matter. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point you make—my rewording of the source has introduced a meaning not intended by the original. I agree that removing "in their private parts" eliminates this unintended meaning ... now trimmed. Sasata (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reading through Wright 2001, I noticed that it mentions cabbage being used as a laxative. Is there any reason this shouldn't be mentioned in Medicinal lore?
  • Well, the section is intended as a selection (rather than a complete compilation) of the weird and wacky traditional uses for cabbage, but I agree that this one is good to add (especially since modern thought suggests that perhaps it really does have laxative effects) ... added. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the Medicinal lore section can and should do a better job of clarifying which uses have been debunked. The one about bathing in urine seems a bit preposterous at first glance, but the alcohol counter seems fairly plausible. It should not be the reader's job to guess.
  • To my knowledge, the only health benefit in this section that has been scientifically demonstrated is its use in relieving the pain of swollen breasts and in prolonging breast feeding duration, which is already indicated explicitly in the text; all others are "folk remedies", to be taken with a pinch (or greater amount) of salt. I've amended the first sentence of the paragraph to read "... cabbage has been used historically as a medicinal herb for a variety of supposed health benefits.", but would welcome any further tweaks to the prose that would help convey the skepticism with which the section should be read. Sasata (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section ordering The usual section ordering for a plant article (e.g. as per the WP:PLANTS template) is to start with "Description" and move on to "Taxonomy" later. For cultivated plants, there does need to be a separate section, early in the article, "History", covering introduction and domestication (which can often include the common names). Looking at articles on different crop species, there seems to be little if any agreement on the ordering of these three sections, although most have them somewhere. I do think it is more useful for the ordinary reader to start with "Description" before moving on to more arcane issues of "Taxonomy and etymology", so I would suggest reversing the order of these two sections. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current arrangement is fine, and is similar to the layout on the featured article for the cultivated species lettuce. The plants template itself prominently advises that "this template is only a suggestion". Personally, I think the description section is more arcane than the information presented in the taxonomy section, but YMMV. I have no issues with changing the order of these two sections if consensus decides otherwise. Sasata (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cabbage/archive1&oldid=1083676928"