Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cochineal/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 8:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [1].

Cochineal[edit]

Notified: WP Textile Arts, WP Mexico, WP Food and Drink, WP Insects

URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 citation needed tags (now down to 2 1), each of the facts they source seem obviously true. I have a hard time seeing what would be gained by this review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, but there are plenty of issues beyond the few citation needed tags. There is a good deal of dated info, WP:OVERLINKing, bare URLs, incomplete citations, and I find it hard to believe the article is comprehensive since it only cites Greenfield (2005-- published as this FA was largely being written) twice (I have the book on order).

And then there's the matter of the very first source cited in the article: [2]

And there is a lot of new research since this article was written, as well as controversy on cochineal in food: have a look at google scholar (search on cochineal food) and see articles in Washington Post, Smithsonian magazine and many more on controversies over its use in food.

Next, at PubMed, at minimum: PMID 25691985 PMID 25398168 PMID 25213214 and many more (we say 32 cases documented "to date" --REALTIME issue-- based on a 2009 source, when we have more recent sources).

The article seems to be not only outdated and based on low quality sources, but lacking in comprehensiveness as well. If we had such a thing as a speedy FA delist, this would be a good example of where we might apply it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. If an FA is supposed to be kept meticulously up to date with new research every couple of years, then there is little point for anyone to dedicate the time to write them - since that is then simply signing up for a never-ending job. I think it would make more sense to have maintenance process instead of a de-listing process. The low quality source you linked to by the way want used for anything - someone just inserted it into the lead probably as a form of advertisement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, issues with comprehensiveness, datedness, and uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include datedness, referencing, and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for citation needed and dated info. Seems short for a featured article; unresolved comprehensiveness concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Doesn't seem like a complete re-do is needed, but no one has taken up the cause. --Laser brain (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Cwmhiraeth and Chiswick Chap, as they have worked a lot on insects lately, just in case they find it interesting to save. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there has been some movement at the station. This one should be easier to sort than some others here. Will see if I can summon enthusiasm...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider the concerns of datedness to be exaggerated, and the concerns of comprehensiveness and referencing to have been resolved.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Why is the Dye section so large when we already have carmine as a large standalone? • Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partly to adress Sandy Georgias comprehensiveness concerns regarding allergic effects of the dye. I would support trimming it down to a summary of the article on Carmine and focus this article on the insect and its production and its use in the production of carmine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Cochineal is the dye; the crawling thing is a cochineal insect. I suggest making cochineal a redir to carmine (or vice versa; choose your poison) and merging the two. Something needs to be merged somewhere. As for the cactus muncher, the risks can be covered in the one long sentence I added; all the history and production can also be summarized in a sentence or two. All the rest should go over to the other article. Then if we want the creeper to be FA, we relist it at FAC. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 15:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cochineal and Carmine are separate subjects with separate literatures. Cochineal is a culture history topic and carmine is a chemistry topic. The animal is called Cochinilla in Spanish (Dactylopius coccus) and is also called Cochineal (sometimes with "bug" or "insect" appended to distinguish the extract from the animal). An encyclopedia should have an entry for Cochineal and it makes perfect sense to treat the animal, the production and the dye together as a single topic under that heading. You are making a huge mistake here and damaging the encyclopedia in doing so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There's too much work to be done and not enough people doing it. RO(talk) 22:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will try and see what I can do to remove unreliable sources and possibly replace them with reliable ones. Could an editor specifically list which references need replacing? Also, which specific areas of this article need expansion? I am aware of some examples provided, but are there anymore parts that need expanding? Burklemore1 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Burklemore1: On scanning the article I have no idea what sources are problematic. Unless someone is willing to list specific objections, I would say that's not actionable. We still need uncited passages either cited or removed (I spotted only one, but there may be more) and dated passages ("As of 2005...") updated. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This FA was promoted in 2006; Greenfield was published in 2005, and was apparently not accounted for at all in the article writing. It is now cited only once in the article, rendering the article uncomprehensive. Check the Look Inside for an idea of how much could be/should be covered. I've got the book, but am not editing regularly now and would not have time to rewrite this article even if I were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, Burklemore1 has expressed willingness to improve the article. Perhaps provide him with the relevant source somehow? FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I will delist this shortly - I agree on the problem with definitiion. I always understood "cochineal" as the dye and the species as the "cochineal bug" or "cochineal insect". See [3][4][5][6][7] This confusion pervades the article as it straddles that line between being about the insect or the dye. It can be overhauled but it is a big job. Sandy's concern about sourcing is valid too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Cochineal/archive1&oldid=1088821072"