Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils/archive1

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

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:07, 29 December 2011 [1].

---

List of vegetable oils

List of vegetable oils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils/archive1

Notified: Waitak, WikiProject Plants, WikiProject Food and drink, WikiProject Energy

Note: I'm helping Waitak go through and check all the sources. Please do not close until things either get on top of us, or the fixes can be evaluated. =) 86.** IP (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it uses marketing material, self-published sources (everything2.com, at least, not sure about some of the others) and sources that do not back its claims. For example, the description of wheat germ oil contains very little that I could find in the source, and one of the major references is bulkoil.com, a manufacturer. This is NOT up to featured standards in sourcing.

I haven't checked every source, nor have I verified all content against the sources. But I'm worried that, in just a few spot checks I found something that was not at all validated by the source, and think this whole article would need its sourcing checked before it could be considered again. 86.** IP (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This should be delisted, pronto. It has way too many commercial and non-reliable sources to be fixed easily and quickly. For example, about.com, recipetips.com, recipezaar.com, snowdriftfarm.com, etc. With the further questions around how the sources are used, raised by User:86.** IP, this would require vetting of every single source currently in the list. All 159 of them. First Light (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, delist. Seems largely based on sources not meeting Wikipedia standards for reliability. The warning templates are entirely justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

One could replace a fair number of citations with FAO minor oil crops. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A good suggestion, although fixing this and recreating from scratch are probably going to be annoyingly similar. =/ 86.** IP (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But it should be delisted until sorted out either way. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 86.** IP (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll start replacing the sources today. I expect it to take less than a week. Waitak (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Even then, every one would need carefully checked against the source as well. 86.** IP (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do that if you like. I already have, and it's already been done twice by then larger community - once when the article was made a featured list, and another time when it was nominated for delisting. I've completed a first pass of removing all of the obviously commercial links. If there are any more specifics, let me know and I'll replace them. Waitak (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Waitak, there's still a TON of commercial links. fromnaturewithlove is a commercial link, cardamomoil.com is, aromatic.co.uk is; there's lots of others as well. Plus, why the hell are we suddenly making highly questionable medicinal claims for acai oil? It's bad enough in herbalism articles, it's getting ridiculous when it's coming into mainstream ones. 86.** IP (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding what part of acai is an anti-oxidant. I've removed that from the entry. Thanks as well for pointing out those three. I'll look them over, and do another couple of passes to get rid of any others. A "ton" is a gross exaggeration. Most of the problems were dealt with yesterday, and there's no good reason why anything left shouldn't be gone by this afternoon. Let's get this done and move on, shall we? Waitak (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I saw a lot when I looked. You got the ones that were used many times, but there's a lot of sources in the same kidney that are only used once. 86.** IP (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to give a sample: http://floraleads.com/OILBUR.HTM , http://web.archive.org/web/20071209080113/http://www.cardamomoil.com/mammy.htm , and http://www.truestarhealth.com/ are all marketing sites, everything2.com is self-published, http://www.coconut-info.com/ does not appear to be a reliable source, and http://www.sankey.ws/pine.html doesn't exist anymore, but given the others, I suspect we shouldn't presume it's suitable. I found those in literally five seconds of clicking likely links, with none of the sources I clicked on proving to be unproblematic. (Of course, I only clicked on ones I thought might be dodgy, so it's not a random sample, but... ) Don't get me wrong, it's certainly a decent start, but this probably isn't as easy as you think, and you're going to need to be careful, because, you know, we are talking about a FEATURED list, so they all need to be top-notch sources, accurately used. Worried a bit by the Acai berry one, since you misread the source, and sloppiness kills the chance of being an FL dead. =/. 86.** IP (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at all of those, and, like I said, I'll look at anything else that might remotely be questionable as well. Really, there aren't many. I'd intended to do this anyway, as you saw on my talk page.

The truestar health site is an interesting one. The thing I've cited there is their Encyclopedia of Health, and all of the articles in it look well-sourced from unimpeachable sources. I could just cite the sources that they cite, I suppose, but the Encyclopedia of Health really does seem to be a good resource, and I'd hate to miss the opportunity to point people to it, since looking at sources is one of the services that WP provides. Maybe I could list it in external links. Any thoughts?

The comment on acai is a fair one, but do be careful not to make all sorts of assumptions about the rest of the article based on that one thing. The mistake was to ascribe properties to the oil that are clearly present in the pulp from which the oil is derived. It's not like the properties that I referenced aren't in the article. I've removed the mention, but it wouldn't be surprising if the phytochemicals that produce the anti-oxidant properties of the pulp are present in the oil as well.

I wanted to mention as well that this exchange is a marked improvement in tone and civility from what's taken place elsewhere. Thanks. Waitak (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Really don't think we should be promoting websites of oil and supplement sellers, which truestarhealth is. This is, at least for now, a featured list. If it's to remain so, everything needs to be of the highest quality. 86.** IP (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Truestar Health is clearly not a reliable source. If you want to get a neutral opinion on that, or any of the sources you are using, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a very good place to go. Because I've spent some time there over the last few years, including commenting on many requests there, I can guarantee you that this Truestar site would be a unanimous "no". They might use some reliable sources on their site, but even then you have to be careful, since Truestar is naturally biased and may cherry pick or misrepresent what the sources actually say. In order to represent the sources they use, you must have the source at hand (or online), read the source yourself, and represent what the source itself states, not how a commercial website interprets it. In the context of plant articles, "reliable source" usually means peer-reviewed academic journals, or books by equally reputable authors or publishers. If you don't have access to those academic journals, which are usually behind a firewall, you can request someone at WikiProject Resource Exchange to download it for you and share it with you. I've had good success there with getting academic journals as reliable sources for plant articles. First Light (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've removed any references to TrueStar in the article. Reference cleanup still in progress. I'll make a note here when I'm done. Waitak (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As 86.** IP mentioned, this has turned into a bit of a project. Please see the article talk page for ongoing details of ref cleanup, which is very much in progress. The article is already vastly improved, but the plan is for every source in the article to be absolutely unimpeachable. As always, please feel free to help out. Waitak (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the initial basis of this FLRC, and also agree that people should hold judgement while work is ongoing. Hats off to 86** IP and Waitak for the effort they're putting into this. —WFC— 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, great progress is being made, so there is no rush to close this. First Light (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The overhaul of the article is basically finished. I've gone over all of the sources, with help from 86.** IP, and replaced perhaps 60% of them (with an additional 20% in the process). Many entries have been either rewritten (to conform to the new sources) or otherwise edited. The article has gone from 64,317 bytes when we started to 78,704 bytes at present. I've also asked for feedback at WP:RSN for the small number of references that were seen as questionable. Thus far, there has been no negative response to any. There was a separate concern about mentioning medical uses, which I've addressed, and (thus far, at least) heard nothing more about. If there are any late-arriving comments on the subject, they will also be addressed.

The bottom line is that the article if is much, much stronger than it's ever been, and that likely wouldn't have happened without this review. If there are any other concerns that we've managed to miss, please feel free to raise them, and we'll address them. Thanks. Waitak (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to go over the article, but 86.** IP has expressed his approval on the talk page. I'll trust the judgment of the two of you on this. Thanks for all the good work. First Light (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pine nut oil is listed twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.115.189 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011

Thanks, I've removed the duplicate. Waitak (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This has now been massively improved. I'm not qualified to say if it meets "featured list" status, but it's hard to see what else could be done to make it better. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

*Delist – As a rule, I don't like to see tagged articles maintain FL status after an FLRC. It signifies that there are issues that haven't been fixed during the process. At the moment, I see four tags: a cite tag after the rose hip seed oil entry, a dated info tag in ref 17, a see talk page tag in ref 49, and a tag in ref 166 indicating that the source is marketing material. In addition, a cursory look at the list reveals MoS and other deficiencies (a faulty spaced em dash in the first paragraph, a space before ref 1, en dashes needed in page ranges, a formatting issue in ref 157). I have no doubt that the list is in better shape than it was before FLRC, but I think some more work is needed before I can be confident that this meets the 2011 criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I've corrected all of the issues that you raised. I agree that the tags should have been removed earlier, and any issues that were behind them addressed. Two of the four had been dealt with previously, and I've now taken care of the remaining two. Specifics: The experimental oil issue was discussed and resolved The "dated" tag was intended to prod me to look at the article, which I'd done and forgotten to remove the tag The candlenut oil reference was from a commercial site. I've replace the reference with a better one. I have sourced the cite tag and rewritten the entry to ensure that, as with all other entries, everything in the text is backed up by a reliable source. Thanks as well for pointing out the MoS blemishes that got by us the first round. I've fixed all of the ones you mentioned. Please feel free to point out any others that you find so that we can fix them. Waitak (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Looks better, although I still see the dated tag. I need to do a more comprehensive review in the next couple days. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Got it. Thanks, and I'll look forward to your review. Waitak (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Okay, I'm back with more thoughts on this list. The lead is overlinked. Something like pressure is such a common term that it doesn't need a link. Fuel, cosmetics, and medicine are further examples later on, and ram press (food) and leaching (chemical science) are unnecessarily linked twice in the lead. Nut oils: Walnut oil seems to be missing a period at the end. Citrus oils: Don't think two citrus links or two essential oil links are needed. One will do for both. Same for the lemon oil link after the entry for that oil. Lemon oil: "Used as a flavoring agent and aromatherapy." Missing "in" before "aromatherapy"? Oils from melon and gourd seeds: Butternut squash seed oil also needs a period at the end. Food supplements: En dashes are needed for the two percentage ranges here. Acai oil also needs a period. A bunch of gamme-Linolenic acid and omega-3 links could use pruning. Also, there's an inconsistency in this section between "omega-3" and "omega 3" to be sorted out. Other edible oils: Apple seed oil and tomato seed oil need periods at the end. Argan oil: "popularized through IDRI-sponsored Targanine project". Few things here. First, it feels like "the" should be added before the group name. Second, there shouldn't be an external link in the text. Third, the group name really should be spelled out. Coriander seed oil: E. Coli should be italicized, and Coli shouldn't be capitalized. False flax seed oil: Hyphen in 1940's should be removed per MoS. Ref 120 should be moved to after the period. It looks like a lot of comments, but most of them will require little work to resolve. More later. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Not at all. I'm grateful to have specifics. I've addressed everything that you mention above. I've done a bit of link pruning. I can see that I'd gone overboard on linking, though, and will work on more (careful) pruning. See what you think of the argan oil entry at this point. The Targanine project seems worth mentioning here, but I've struggled with writing it. Thanks for the review. It's very helpful. Waitak (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Continuing on, finally, I go to Multipurpose oils also used as biofuel and see a couple faulty hyphens at the start of the subsection. MoS recommends either spaced en dashes (small ones) or unspaced em dashes (big ones). Done Don't need to link Palm oil a second time in the Palm oil entry. Done Drying oils, Dammar oil: "Can also be used as in oil lamps." Remove "as"? Done (rephrased) Vernonia oil: Another en dash needed here for the percentage range. Done Other oils: Don't need two castor oil links in the bladderpod oil entry. Done Honesty oil needs an en dash for its percentage range. Done Will check the references later. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I've now addressed these. Waitak (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Now checking the cites. A bit of work still needs to be done here. First, notess 1, 4, 13, 17, 77, 141, 143, 145, 146, 149, 153, 158, 160, 165, 166, and 172 need access dates. Done (and found a dead link I'd missed!) The titles of note 20 and 143 have hyphens in them, which stylistically should be en dashes. We are allowed to make small style fixes like these, so feel free to. Done Note 60 has a p. before the page range. This should be pp., since it is a multiple-page cite. Done Notes 71 and 200 have parts of their page ranges missing. Done (converted to ff.) In notes 75 and 155, the publishers should be italicized since they are both printed publications. Done No need to have an external link to the publisher in notes 138, 160, 165, 166, and 169 Done Notes 140, 198, and 207 need a publisher. Done Note 144 needs a publisher and access date. Done Note 152 has a quote mark before the title, but none after. Should be either one before and after or none, but not just one. Done Notes 167 and 192 seem to be missing a comma after the author, unlike the other short cites. Done Note 201 needs to be more specific than "See Ojon.com". We need a fully formatted citation of some kind, even if it is intended to be to the front page of the website. Done (but see if this is what you had in mind) Giants2008 (Talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) All sorted. Note on the Duke Handbook references: I've converted all but one to short refs, and moved the main reference to the general reference section. Waitak (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Few final things from me and I'll finally be done. Noticed while checking changes that ref 172 also needs a publisher. Done Ref 200 now has a pp. for a single-page cite, which should be made p. if possible (not sure how the ff. formatting works with that). Done Ref 201 (the Ojon.com one} could still use a publisher outside the title. Probably should have made that clearer the first time. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC) All set. The way I was reading the "ff" was "pages ### and following", but I can see reading it as "page ### and following" as well. I changed another usage of ff. as well to page=. Waitak (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Note: I've converted ref 172 to a short ref, pointing to the complete citation under general references. Waitak (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep – A lot of work has gone into bringing the list back up to FL standards, and it shows. A nice job here, and a good example of the positives that can come from an FLRC. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of the help in getting it back up to standard. I've learned a lot through this process, and I expect that this will continue to bear fruit in other articles as well. Waitak (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I notice that the review is not yet formally closed. Did I jump the gun in removing the FLRC notice from the article talk page? Waitak (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you did. If the review isn't closed, that shouldn't be touched (and a bot handles it anyway). I strongly suggest that you revert that edit. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since Waitak hasn't edited since that comment, I decided to revert myself. Please be careful with notices in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. Glad I asked, and my apologies for being hasty. This being a holiday weekend here, I wasn't at a computer for much of the day, hence the delay in reverting the comment. Waitak (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am thorougly impressed by how much this article has improved. I have a question about the title. Why is this article called List of vegetable oils while the parent article is called Vegetable fats and oils? Are vegetable fats listed on List of vegetable oils or could they be listed on a separate article? Are vegetable fats ever called "vegetable oils," or do the words "fat" and "oil" most commonly distinguish between two distinct categories of substances (ie. solids and liquids)? As far as I can tell, one of three things should happen: 1) List of vegetable oils should be renamed List of vegetable fats and oils, 2) Vegetable fats and oils should be renamed Vegetable oil, or 3) a List of vegetable fats should be created. Neelix (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the lede of List of vegetable oils, the term "vegetable oil" is semi-specific to those substances that are liquid at room temperature, but the term "vegetable fat" applies broadly whether the substance is liquid or solid at room temperature. Given that "vegetable fat" is the more inclusive term, should this article be renamed List of vegetable fats and the parent article be renamed Vegetable fat? Neelix (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments. You raise an important question, and some intriguing options. Would you mind if we move the above to the article talk page so that a wider audience can participate? I'd love to retain this thread once the FLRC discussion has closed. Waitak (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Neelix (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:List of vegetable oils Waitak (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actualluy, that's wrong - fats refers to solids; lipid is the generic term (though lipid, being a scientific term, tends to apply more to pure chemicals). 86.** IP (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Giants2008. This list is back up to scratch with respect to the featured list criteria. Neelix (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - agree.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.