Talk:Mission (grape)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mission (grape)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dishita Bhowmik (talk · contribs) 09:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the article is ready enough to qualify as a good article. It predominantly contains historical information and is not wide in its coverage. It needs recent information such as production, farmed in areas, etc. It also contains some copyrighted information. Eligible for quick fail. DishitaBhowmik 09:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

First let me say thanks for beginning this GAN. That said, what copyright violations were found? I have used Duplication Detector and did not find any significant issues. This historical information is all sourced to reliable sources. The information added since April 2019, contains a significant amount of what can be found via internet searches. Thus, quickly failing does nothing to actually improve the article content.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, Earwig finds that copyright violation is unlikely.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I agree that quick fail does nothing to improve the article. However, instructions clarify that if an article is not yet ready for GA status, it can be quick failed. I already appreciate your contributions to the article and am ready to work on it with you but I am currently busy for a few days. When I am free again, I will try to find out more information on the subject. Once the article is ready after the work, you can renominate it and inform me on my talk page so that I can pass it quickly. Regards DishitaBhowmik 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is primarily historical information, as it is no longer widely produced, only produced by niche growers. As such information about current growing patterns of this varietal other than the statement written in the Los Angeles Times is sparse. If you know more than what the internet has readily available, than by all means add to it!--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I have found these links.

• https://www.wine-searcher.com/grape-924-pais-mission
• https://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-natural-wine-mission-grape-bichi-noel-tellez-20190509-story.html
• https://www.specialtyproduce.com/produce/Mission_Grapes_11094.php

I think we could use some information from there. DishitaBhowmik 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

All but the Specialty Produce are included in the article (and I have seen it for my search for additional reliable sources). Specialty Produce is a commerce site, and thus is not a preferred type of source. That said, while I understand that there is good intention in offering these sources, that some of these sources are already in the article (wine-searcher is in the external links section, and the 2019 LA Times article is already utilized in the article four separate times), means that the GAR of quick fail shows that the reviewer failed to actually look at the article. Take care, be well, and be safe in these troubling times.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the much needed wishes especially when China is our neighbour. And same to you. However I am a newbie to GAN review so I am often confused in my assesment, but I hope to improve my understanding of the review process. Thanks for patiently helping me improve my mistakes. That said I am beginning to think that maybe I should have put the review on hold. Can I do that now? I am willing to rectify my mistake. DishitaBhowmik 14:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Review has been quick failed, and closed. What has been done has been done. Now to go forward and continue article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)