Wikipedia:Peer review/Saffron/archive1

Saffron

I've been working on upgrading this article to match (within reason) the format of such (featured) articles as Black pepper and Butter. I was wondering what other holes here need to be filled in. Thanks. Saravask 06:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm working now to fill out the history section more. Saravask 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Appears well researched, but the writing just doesn't feel as well organized as the other two you mention. Specifically one and two sentence paragraphs should be eliminated. They show areas that should either be expanded, merged with related material, or simply removed. Same for the lead, it should either be two or three full paragraphs. Could always use more sources, especially backing the herbal medicine uses in order to be able to state those claims without weasel words (including the one I felt was needed in the meantime). Finally are there any more useful external links you could add? Maybe Epicurious' coverage of the spice and its uses, or maybe just a few of the best links left from a google search. I wouldn't make the history much longer. More than two full paragraphs is probably overemphasis. - Taxman ^Talk 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go add some links (I'll put them in as Harvard references, unless people prefer a discrete "external links" section). I agree that there are too many small paragraph sentences — I've been tied up with other things recently, but now I can address these hopefully within the next day. More later ... Saravask 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a few more links (including an Epicurious recipe link). I'll try and find further sources for the herbal section. Saravask 04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• What a nice article. My only comment is that the history section seems a bit skimpy and eurocentric, skipping from 1500BC to AD1000, then 15th-18th century. Romans? Mediaeval period? 19th century? And outside Europe - China? India? Egypt, even? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll try to address the eurocentrism and skimpy treatment in that section within the next day. I'm writing that content offline currently. Please check back then. Thanks! Saravask 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I added a portion on the Kashmiri history. More to come soon ... Saravask 04:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It sure is a lot better than it was a few days ago. Check out McGee's On Food and Cooking for a source; it's concise and usually pretty accurate. Google Books Link. Some more specific points:
  • Well, I see that you're working on the history. Statements like "Written records show that saffron has been used medicinally in the treatment of 90 illnesses for over four millennia" should be much more specific about what these written records are, so that we can evaluate how reliable their dating and translations may be.

Unfortunately, I didn't write that sentence. I'll try and verify it with the sources we have now. Thanks. Saravask 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I didn't know what a "style" of a flower was, and now that I think about it, even the term "stigma" isn't exactly an everyday word. The lead sentence should be more accessible. It's probably also worth mentioning that the style is (according to McGee) only included in lower-grade saffrons.

I just defined style, corm, and stigma. Thanks. Saravask 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I became curious while reading the article about the different grades of culinary saffron in general - I guess there's a couple of grades of strands, and does anyone sell just the powder itself?

There are four recognized ISO categories: I, II, III, and IV. I just put in a new section on that matter. Thanks for reminding me. Saravask 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • "pleasant and spicy" fragrance - pleasant according to whom? Then in "usage", the aroma is "best described as reminiscent of honey and somewhat bitter". "Best" described?

I think I fixed it, although some problems may remain (it might be borderline weasel). Saravask 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The etymology of "crocus" doesn't belong in this article. Speaking of which, a link to the crocus article should be worked into the lead.

Done. Saravask 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The short three-element list in "Biology and Chemistry" might as well be prose.

Done. Saravask 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • "Zeaxanthin, is — in a minor sense — responsible for the reddish hue and contributes partly to saffron's aroma." I'm unsure what "in a minor sense" here means. Partly responsible?
  • I'd like to see some more specific information on prices, since a major claim to fame here is how it costs so much.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's already been mentioned, but the history section could do with being longer and fuller. It reads like a collection of facts. Information about historical trade, where it was used and by which sections of society - how exclusive was it? And so on.
• I'd be interested to see more information about the plant (what it looks like, size, how it reproduces, more on its harvesting - the scale of the operation etc) rather than just the spice (or is this in another article?)

Done. It's from an old source (1931), though. :-( Saravask 17:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on your footnoting system. It looks like we have an article on "Saffron Specialist 2004" and so on.

I've already started converting it back to ref/note. Thanks. Saravask 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what "In modern times, saffron has been suggested by the United Kingdom as an ideal alternative — due to its high price and suitability to the mostly semiarid Afghan climate — to the now widespread and illicit cultivation of opium" means. Is "In modern times, saffron has been suggested by the United Kingdom as an ideal alternative to the now widespread and illicit cultivation of opium in Afghanistan due to its high price and suitability to the mostly semiarid climate."?

But it's a good article. Just needs a bit more. --Cherry blossom tree 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, this is Saravask speaking. I'll try and address all concerns by tomorrow evening (On my honor ...). I look forward to your guys' reactions then, and am reading your comments carefully now. I appreciate this — this article has never had such an outpouring of attention. Until then ... Saravask 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more issue with the lead: most sources[1] define "saffron" as the spice or stigmas, not as the plant itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how to fix this problem. Do you have any recommendations? Saravask 01:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I took a shot at it and redid the lead sentences. I think calling the spice "saffron" and the flower the "safron crocus" is the way to go. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain, but I find the use of Harvard referencing really inapproprite for encyclopedia writing, they break up the flow of the text. Why are you using it in place of the less intrusive footnoting system?--nixie 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I just started converting it to footnote format now. I started using it in articles after I got a suggestion in a recent FAC that Harvard refs aid users' ability to determine source credibility inline, while reading the text. Saravask 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I got the first one converted to ref/note, at least. :-( Saravask 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Small scale cultivation also occurs in Tasmania [2][3].--nixie 03:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put it in now. Saravask 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Poor Saravask. Caught in the middle of an arbitrary and silly war between the styles of references. What is this, the fifth time you've been asked to switch from one style of referencing to the other, back and forth? Pretty obnoxious (especially since you're so fantastic at using numerous in-depth references, so there's a lot to change), though their complaints are understandable, as neither system is ideal... This is one reason why popular culture junk is so popular (no pun intended) on Wikipedia: there's so few distinct references on most of it, that people can have a field day with Original Research. Our Harry Potter coverage wouldn't be so much larger than our coverage of Greek culture or human anatomy if we required just as much referencing and in-depth academic coverage. :f Oh well, keep up the good work! -Silence 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, not a big deal. And right now we are using both types anyway, since each has its own proper use. Saravask 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing worries me right now. Maybe many of the references are good, but the one I just checked has me concerned. Specifically, the reference for "there, saffron was used by the ancient Persian religion as a ritual offering to deities; this practice is continued by many Zoroastrians to this day" is this page, which has as its entire entry on "Zoroastrian": "Ancient Iranian religion, which is still practiced by some today. Saffron was ritually used to honour the Gods." I have three problems with this source. (1) The material in the article is longer than the material in the source. (2) The material in the article includes a new fact, that the practice of saffron offering continues today, and (3) this source is clearly a secondary source, but I couldn't find pointers to what primary or secondary sources it got its data from, so I'm suspicious of how reliable a source it is.

Sorry if this seems too-fussy; I've just found it's really common for web-pages to throw around incautiously-researched "facts" on foods and spices, so I like to see more solid sourcing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I'll go to the library and pick up some books tomorrow, so I can check out that info. I was about to mention this, since many data in the more "lightweight" internet sources contradict what I found in Google Print sources (for example, a print source states a 50 ton world production, while an internet source states 300 tons) — in addition to many spelling differences (i.e., "crocine" vs. "crocin"). Indeed, wasn't it one of my professors who referred to the Internet as an "open sewer" of unverified facts? Thanks. Saravask 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I've done much research and copyediting for organization and flow. If I somehow overlooked something, please let me know. Saravask 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)