 | Fir has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 24, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
T.Wang_ex_Cheng.JPG){kind=small}
GA review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Fir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 08:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Since I’ll likely get your Spruce article done today, I might as well do all of them for you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Super, thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Totally off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks it's bizarre that forestry topics fall under the umbrella of Agriculture and not Science? Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, agriculture, horticulture and forestry all share the practical aspect of production (crops, veggies, timber), whereas science is limited to research. There is a research aspect to these three activities, but that is ancillary to their primary goal, which is production. Another thing: agriculture, horticulture and forestry all grade into each other: veggies can be grown at field scale, agroforestry grows both trees and crops, and so on. So I think the allocation is pretty sensible. What is more weird is that the consumption aspects of food and drink are lumped in with production, as if car driving were to be grouped with the vehicle manufacturing industry: now that makes no sense! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that does make sure now that you've explained it. I saw where you have additional articles on specific plant species pending in the Science category, and figured that trees and plants would go together. I'm sure there is plenty of overlap on most articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- An editor switched several of the articles there, and only switched some of them back again. Life. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that does make sure now that you've explained it. I saw where you have additional articles on specific plant species pending in the Science category, and figured that trees and plants would go together. I'm sure there is plenty of overlap on most articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, agriculture, horticulture and forestry all share the practical aspect of production (crops, veggies, timber), whereas science is limited to research. There is a research aspect to these three activities, but that is ancillary to their primary goal, which is production. Another thing: agriculture, horticulture and forestry all grade into each other: veggies can be grown at field scale, agroforestry grows both trees and crops, and so on. So I think the allocation is pretty sensible. What is more weird is that the consumption aspects of food and drink are lumped in with production, as if car driving were to be grouped with the vehicle manufacturing industry: now that makes no sense! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Totally off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks it's bizarre that forestry topics fall under the umbrella of Agriculture and not Science? Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Comments (9/22/25)
edit- In Cones, I would wikilink or otherwise explain what a bract is. Didn't this same thing come up in one of the other articles?
- Done.
- In Fossil history, recommend wikilinking Siberia.
- Done.
Chiswick Chap: This article is very well written, as you can see by the small number of comments I have. Please let me know when you have a chance to go through these, and I will do the source and image reviews as soon as I can. Let me know if you have any questions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- User:Bgsu98: done those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- User:Chiswick Chap: Okay, great! I will try to do the image and source reviews tomorrow, but based on your articles so far, I expect them to just be pro forma with no issues. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- User:Bgsu98: done those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Image review (9/24/25)
edit- Images have appropriate licenses and captions. I am again strongly suggesting you add appropriate alt-text when you have a chance. Some of the images do have alt-text already, but some do not. I added the alt-text to the image in the infobox because many editors forget about that one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Source review (9/24/25)
edit- Random spot check of references checks out.
- Formatting of sources is consistent. I personally recommend wikilinking sources (such as newspapers), but that is a personal preference. I also recommend archiving sources, which is beyond the scope of the GA, but is still good practice.
User:Chiswick Chap: This article is very well written! I'm happy to pass this GA. I still encourage you to add alt-text to the images when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.