Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Durian

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

[edit] Durian

Previous FAC

Self-nomination. The article was prematurely nominated in July 2006 by another editor and failed. Since then I have been working to fix the problems and it appears to be completed now. Any objection will be responded promptly. --BorgQueen 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment for now WP:UNITS needs to be applied to this article. Gnangarra 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Done I think it has been taken care of now. Please check if I missed anything. --BorgQueen 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I now fully support the article and they really do taste great 8) Gnangarra 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment...just reading about it makes me queasy. I gagged, couldn't hack the smell which was to me like armpit mixed with asparagus (yechhh!). But seriously, I think it fulfils all criteria but I am concerned about the flow of language in the lead, especially the first para - the sentences seem clunky. I feel teh label 'King of Fruit' should be in the first 1-2 sentences as it highlights the reverence this fruit is held in in SE Asia - something really highlighting how you either love it or hate it. I am happy to have a tinker but won't unless given permission and you want to try it first. I was also wondering whether teh lead should be a tiny bit longer given the length of the article but was unsure what else should go in it. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, you are welcome to lend a helping hand and edit the lead yourself (if that is what you meant). Although I am a bit nervous that you spell the as teh. :-D But I wouldn't mind if you are willing to fix the lead yourself. --BorgQueen 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

hahaha - ok, there. I know I mention smell and taste twice but I was trying to encapsulate what the key points are in the first sentence or two. With this plant i feel no text can overemphasise the issue on smell/taste....(feel free to tweak more) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks quite good now, and the lead has three paragraphs, which is the standard for a FA (as far as I know). Thanks for your help. Done --BorgQueen 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like a bit of botany (which is why I added the sentence in the lead to show what economically important plants it is related to), actually the article is a little light on the botanical side of things but not enough to oppose. Sorry as I write this I am musing on the lead still to see if it is nice and tight yet. I might have to ruminate a bit..but it's improving. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support oh sod it - I keep playing around with it in my head and I can't see a better way of reworking the lead. I am happy now. Congrats (well, hopefully) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support Support. Got to taste it once, very strange.

• Some apparent OR on unreferenced paragraphs, including in the "Durian customs" section and third paragraph of the lead.

Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...and even cappuccino - POV.

Done Removed "even". BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some durians really do have almost no spines - Reword to Some durians have shortened spines.

Done The sentence, uncited, has been replaced with a cited one. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alphabetize interwiki links.

They are already alphabetized, beginning with bg:Дуриан, da:Durian, de:Durian, eo:Durio,... and ending with zh:榴槤. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, I got what you meant. I organized the links according to the order posted here. Please let me know if I missed anything. Done --BorgQueen 02:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...creamy, slightly alcoholic - "alcoholic" improperly linked.

Done The internal link has been removed. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reference USDA Nutrient database in the nutritional value chart using a regular reference rather than an external link.

Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...some distance before excreting it, the seed being dispersed as the result - Change second part to ...with the seed being. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little confused. Does this article about the fruit durian also represent the genus durio? --Idda 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just like the article about the black pepper also represent the species Piper nigrum. --BorgQueen 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. P. nigrum as a species is synonymous with black pepper. If I understand correctly, durian fruit is not a characterizing feature of the genus durio, albeit that is what its most known for. My point is the plant itself should the subject. Not that the fruit shouldn't comprise most of the article but I think as it stands the tree (genus) is given short shrift in the lead. --Idda 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See WP:NC (flora) for guidelines on articles that deal with botanical products. This article is excellent for its subject matter, but I'd remove the taxobox and create Durio to cover some of the material presented in the "Species" and "Cultivars" sections, then rewrite those in summary style (though they're pretty close as it is). The taxobox is a bit misleading, I think, since the article is about the fruit product and not about the genus. Of course, creation of the article Durio is not a requirement for my support of this article for FA status, but I think it would help make the focus of the article a bit more clear with two separate articles and use of summary style in Durian for genus-related topics in the article. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I tend to agree that a separate article on Durio as a genus in its strictly botanical sense would be helpful for the reader; above all, we have a huge load of material available on its cultivars (actually I had created a big table for the cultivars in 2006 but removed it because it was a bit overwhelming) and the current cultivar section is a summary, which means there is nothing much to be taken out of the current article even when the article about the genus is created, except the plant infobox. --BorgQueen 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support now this is fixed. Weak Oppose, solely on part of the 'Medicinal Uses' section. "It is recommended as a good source of raw fats by several raw food advocates,[30][31] while others classify it as a high-glycemic fruit and recommend to minimise its consumption.[32] David Klein, a certified health consultant, instructs those with colitis or Crohn's disease to temporarily discontinue eating durian in his "vegan healing diet guidelines", classifying the fruit as one of fatty, high-protein foods". I'm not sure the sources for this section are medical or nutritional authorities. Do differing points of view amongst different sorts of vegans (quacks or not) really warrant inclusion here? If so, they probably shouldn't be in a 'medicinal' section. Otherwise, very good article, I will eat dozens of them on public transport next time I am in Singapore. The Land 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've renamed the section to "Nutritional and medicinal". Will this do? And why do you have to torture those poor Singaporeans that way? :-D --BorgQueen 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In addition, I edited out the David Klein part and reworded the sentence. Please check if it is better now, in your view. --BorgQueen 12:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.