Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of saffron

History of saffron edit

Self-nomination. A peer review here saw no comments. All this was part of Saffron when it passed through FAC. I am nominating this article for the same reasons (I have heavily researched this), while others (especially Bunchofgrapes ~~and Silence~~) were indispensable in fact-checking and copyediting my writing. Saravask 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an objection, but IMHO it could use a bit more tweaking with the flow of the article WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I researched the content and wrote it up, the prose has been extensively copyedited by three people. I welcome you to be more specific on flow, and I'll see what I can do. Saravask 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't copyedited this yet at all. I only did the early sections of the article; I stopped before I reached "history" (which has been under heavy editing lately, anyway). I can give it a shot if you're interested, though. -Silence 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; sure, if you could give it a good once-over, I'd be glad. Thanks. Saravask 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am slightly conflicted over the title of this article. While I think the title is strictly inaccurate (ignoring other non-human species and biological factors), I also don't think it necessary or appropriate for such content to be included in this article. On the other hand I wouldn't want a stupidly long, pedantic and defining title. Any ideas?--Oldak Quill 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your objection. This article covers the history of saffron. Other material is at saffron. Can you be more specific? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly, it is not an objection - just an inquiry. The article is about the history of human interaction with saffron, I was wondering whether the title "history of saffron" was appropriate for this article which only deals with the history of human-interaction. Looking in the OED, its primary definitions of the word "history" don't necessarily imply that it is human history, or that the history needs to have anything to do with humans. Lower down the listing the definitions become more Homo-centric with human involvement implied. Considering it now, I think it unlikely that there'll be confusion over the content of the article and that I was being a little pedantic. Support. --Oldak Quill 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That article is very well done. I admire the thoroughness of your research. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of the source material. This is definately an example to follow, thank you and well done. --HasBeen 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Commons link belongs in the external links section and an empty part of the blockquote is covered by an image (even on a pretty large screen), could the block quote be made less wide so it fits next to the image? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. Saravask 14:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work, great illustrations - well done. Giano | talk 13:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only reason for an objection which I could find was the Commons-box, which appeared halfway through the article. I have removed it, and I'm in full support now. Excellent prose, nice pictures (with approved copyright status - none are fair use, excellent!) and extensive use of references. Good job. Soothing R 18:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support I find it odd that the history section of Saffron contains information about the history of saffron in North America that this article, a split from the original saffron one, does not contain. I suggest that this more detailed historical information be transfered, and that the history section of Saffron generally be pared down, now that we essentially have a featured article on its history. That said, great work; I'm impressed. --Zantastik 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Someone must like saffron a lot. - Cuivienen 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perfect!--sansvoix 23:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. North American stuff appears in this article. The blockquote is really only a minor quabble and Commons box is now in correct place. Now let's get started on the next saffron article! - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! One of the best articles I've read on wikipedia... Mikkerpikker 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]