Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trade and usage of saffron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Trade and usage of saffron

Self-nomination. 1st peer review. This is the last of the "Saffron" trilogy: Saffron, History of saffron, and Trade and usage of saffron, and is a stand-alone article meant to comprehensively handle elaborate details on usage/trade that are too specialized to appear in the main Saffron article (which was formerly ~ 70 kb). Indeed, creating this daughter article alone knocked ~ 26 kb off of Saffron, helping to bring it into greater compliance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Saravask 18:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: Article professionally written, informative yet not patronising, a prime example. --Speedway 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: An excellent article, a credit to all concerned with its creation. Clearly written and well-illustrated. Lisiate 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent! Boy, but have the WP:FAC regulars learnt a lot about saffron lately?! Mikkerpikker ... 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too many saffron articles on FA already! Support Are you the official saffron guru or something? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Spicy! A most delighting article. Phils 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think it can now be claimed without contestation that Wikipedia is the number-one source of complete and factual information about saffron on the Internet. Great job, Saravask. Andrew Levine 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object Great article, but I have a few easily fixable concerns: Support
  • Its aroma is described by connoisseurs as honey-like, with grassy, hay-like, and metallic notes. Saffron's taste is also hay-like, but yet somewhat bitter. Is the footnote near the end of that paragraph intended to cover this? My first impression was that it's rather vague about who these "connoisseurs" are -- are they connoisseurs of saffron or of smells? My second impression was that there's an awful lot of "-like"s in these two sentences. Also, "hay-like, but yet somewhat bitter" is bad, because "yet" implies a connection between bitter and hay-like. Is hay known for being sweet?
  • Saffron is used in many cultures as a condiment for rice (giving "saffron rice"). I've never heard of "saffron rice", and that seems irrelevant anyway. Saffron and rice together are called "saffron rice", which is pretty self-evident.
  • The first paragraph under "medicinal use" needs some work. "has been used for", "was also used against", "was also used to treat", "was reputed to counter" -- these sentences are redundant and confusing, because it's not clear why diseases are in different sentences. Also note "diseases such as respiratory infections such as cough". I'd also like to know who believes these things. Presumably they are some combination of folk beliefs and alternative medicine, which should be in the article. Saffron's folk medicinal uses probably vary quite a bit, so they should be attributed specifically. Excellently fixed!
  • The box and the picture under "Colouring and perfumery" squeezes the first paragraph.
  • "But turmeric and most other spices similar to saffron do not produce such colours" not a complete sentence
  • Remove the passive voice as much as possible (note the first paragraph under "Modern trade")
• Tuf-Kat 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I made some fixes to address these ([1]). Saravask 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good. I've changed to support, though if you made any changes to the layout under Colouring and perfumery, they haven't solved the problem. Tuf-Kat 04:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize — what I did there was to shrink the box/image sizes under "Colouring and perfumery". I guess I didn't understand what you were saying. Could you elaborate on what you wanted? Saravask 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The text between the colorbox and photo is all squeezed together so there's only two or so words on each line. Since the Buddhist robes aren't mention until a little further down, I suggest moving the colorbox over and the pic down and to the left. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's odd — w/ my browser/screen resolution, it looks OK. At any rate, I moved the robes image down to "Notes" ([2]). This should look better. Saravask 05:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a teensy little monitor, which is probably why. Anyway, it looks much better. Thanks. Tuf-Kat 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Two small concerns though: can we be more specific than "substances" in "most costly substances throughout history"? should the John Major work be referenced at "According to John Major's 1521 History of Greater Britain..."? --maclean25 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Some edits: ([3]). Saravask 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Pretty much all the objections have been dealt with, and I can't see anything to prevent this article from getting featured status. Must say, it's testament to the authors hardwork that saffron has such an amazing representation on wikipedia. I think the tally so far qualifies as a consensus doesn't it? Thethinredline 09:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A well written, well presented, well illustrated and well referenced article. An excellent example of how good sub-articles can be. I also want to take this opportunity to say that while you put alot into articles, you're also very responsive to suggestions on this page on any improvements that need to be, or should be, made. Well done and keep up the good work! --Oldak Quill 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Why is saffron's taste described as being like that of hay? How many people around the world know what hay tastes like? How many readers, therefore, will be enlightened by that description? Joe D (t) 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

<Shrugs>. Ask Harold McGee; that's how he describes it in his book. Saravask 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Basically repeating others, a model sub-article. - BanyanTree 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Impressive. –Joke 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there an image gallery at the bottom of the page? Both the Saffron and Hisotry of saffron have the exact same gallery of images, why are they repeated?. I'm suprised no one has mentioned it already. I always thought images galleries were discouraged, becuase Wikipedia Commons funcitons in that regard. MechBrowman 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would prefer that the title be Trade and use of saffron; "usage" just doesn't sound as good for reasons that I'm not really sure I know how to articulate. --Zantastik <font color=darkgreen size=1>talk</font> 08:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support --- 1. the gallery has to go 2. Reduce unnecessary wikifying 3. Avoid starting a new section with a left-aligned table/image. It is more difficult to read that way. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some responses:

• The image gallery is at the very bottom of the page and is not interfering with anything else. It also helps give direct access to free images to the many/majority of readers who are not too (or not at all) familiar with what the Commons is.
• I don't understand what the problem is with left-aligned lead images. AFAIK, there's no official guideline/policy on it, and it looks perfectly elegant to me.
• Also, as none of the other voters brought up any of these same concerns, I'm assuming that Nichalp and MechBrowman are in the minority regarding these issues.

If these concerns are that important, you're always free to post this article at WP:FARC. Saravask 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)