Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of vegetable oils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] List of vegetable oils

  • Self-nominated. This is a comprehensive list of pressed vegetable oils. Originally the list included essential oils, but these have been moved to List of essential oils. In preparation for applying for featured list status, I've written stub articles for about 40 of the oils listed here. There are still a (very) few that don't have their own articles, but I think that it now meets the "large majority of blue links" criterion. Waitak 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks really good except for the references. Right now they are messy and in external ink format. See, for example, {{cite web}} of suggested format. Also, please use cite.php to have proper footnotes (there is one already done). Renata 11:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • References converted to use {{cite web}} and family. I would love to use cite.php, but that precludes grouping the references, doesn't it? I'd love to use <ref>...</ref> consistently, but wasn't able to figure a way to do so without just jumbling all of the references into one list. Any suggestions? Waitak 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dunno really, but I see nothing wrong with references being in one big list. If you use cite.php, then all the refs will be in order. So it will more or less match the TOC. Also, the references still look very messy.... :( Renata 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I get the feeling that every item on the list should be referenced. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't add comments where the blurb next to the oil is backed up by the main article on the oil. In those cases, the link itself is the reference. Waitak 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case oppose. Please don't use other Wikipedia articles as your source. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, let me be more clear. I didn't want to clutter up the List of vegetable oils page by repeating sources that were referenced in the linked page. If that was a wrong call, I have no objection to putting in external references for statements that require one. It'd make the references pretty long, though. Is that okay? Waitak 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think repeating the sources is preferable, since we cannot always expect the readers to follow the links to the main articles. If the list of references becomes too large there is a CSS that allows resizing, or you can also list them in two columns. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay... I've changed the article to use the strategy that you suggest, here and in User:Rune.welsh/FLC. Still a little ways to go, but all entries should have references within another day or two. Honestly, I question whether it helps the reader to have a source for a statement like, "Safflower oil is a colorless, odorless oil used primary for cooking", but if I'm going to err, it might as well be in the direction of encyclopediosity, I suppose. I did ask for this review, after all! --Waitak 14:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All references have now been converted to cite.php. I've begun to fill in external references for all statements in the one-line summaries of each oil, and will finish them within the next few days. Can you give me an example of a page with a lot of references that doesn't look messy? Happy to correct it, but I'm not sure what you're after, exactly. I've already converted everything to {{cite web}} and family, with comments added after the template call if needed. --Waitak 09:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a very pretty list. Thanks for pointing me to it. --Waitak 14:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for recommending and complimenting it, I'm flattered. :) —Nightstallion (?) 23:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've now:
Anything else need to be done? --Waitak 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd put the external links below the references, but I don't care either way. Excellent work!. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - MUCH better. Still not quite ideally perfect (i.e. some consistency issues), but good enough :) Renata 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - good stuff, but what are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this list? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It covers this in the leadin, I think but the criteria are:
  • Oil is from parts of plants,
  • extracted by pressing (or the more widely used equivalents)
Basically, any plant oil at all for which there is any evidence whatsover that it is or was extracted and used on any regular basis belongs on this list. I'd guess that 99.9%+ of all commercial vegetable oil trade, past or present, is accounted for by the oils on the list. As the list is intended to be comprehensive, the only criteria for exclusion would be that it's not a pressed oil, or that it's derived from something other than plants. Hope that's helpful. --Waitak 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that is helpful. The article claims to be a comprehensive list of all oils extracted from plants (except for essential oils), but your criterion was "extracted and used on any regular basis". How do you decide that? Is there a list somewhere that you have used as a reference?
Secondly, in List of essential oils I find "Orange oil, like lemon oil, cold pressed rather than distilled".
Don't mistake me - this is a very good list: I just want to be certain that it is indeed comprehensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair question. In short, every oil that I've been able to find on any site anywhere that's pressed from parts of plants is on this list. Every once in a while, I find a reference to an oil that I hadn't heard of, and add it to the list - I think that the last one was thistle oil, if I remember correctly. The original list that I based this on is the one at Bulk Oil Trading, listed in the general references section, but the list has since grown quite a bit beyond what was listed there. The "used on any regular basis" means nothing more than "somebody actually cared enough about this oil to mention it in some publication or another".
The case of orange oil and lemon oil is a funny one. I'm also the creator of List of essential oils, which I hived off from this list for the reasons given (and just because of the sheer size of the list). From what I've been able to gather orange oil and lemon oil are the only two oils that are both (1) cold pressed and (2) considered essential oils. They're also unusual in that both are derived from the peels of the fruit. On the basis of that, I went for the path of least resistence and moved them from this list to List of essential oils. --Waitak 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I think there should at least be a sentence explaining why orange oil and lemon oil are excluded. On the others, I think I am going to have to live with this being as good as it gets; on which basis, I will support -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Done, and thank you! --Waitak 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: provide references backing up your reasoning for excluding
Orange oil and lemon oil are now included in both pages. I've modified the criteria to include pressed essential oils, since this appears to have led to confusion over what's included. As of this point all pressed oils from vegetable source are included with no exceptions or exclusions.
  • Strong oppose.
    • References lack important information. If using {{cite web}}, fill in as many fields as possible.
      • Example of inadequate reference: 5. ^ Canola Oil. Retrieved on 2006-07-24. What part of the website is your statement sourced from? I couldn't find it.
      • There are many, many references (both general and inline) that only include a title and accessdate. This is inadequate. At the very least, always include the publisher (this may be the name of the website).
    • Some of your cited sources are in fact other articles on Wikipedia. This is unacceptable.
    • Notes such as 1. ^ Orange oil and lemon oil, while both cold pressed, are considered essential oils... are unsourced statements, and need to be based on references like everything else.
    • Non-standard layout. Section order should be See also, then Notes (in this case "Notes and references"), then References (in this case "General references"). See WP:GTL. Half the links currently in the See also section are redundant (already linked in text), and should be removed.
    • Vague or confusing statements. Peanut oil, the original biofuel. Does this mean it was the first oil used as a biofuel? Is this mostly symbolic or practical? Cottonseed oil, both costly and lower value as a fuel.[61] Lower than what?
    • All notes should be placed outside punctuation per WP:FOOT. Note that some items are missing important punctuation such as periods.

heqs 04:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Okay, one at a time:

  • Inadequate reference
I've fixed the one you mentioned. I'm not aware of any others, but will go through the article again and fix any that I find.
  • Using as many fields as possible in {{cite web}}
This was a stylistic choice based on comments in this review. The early comments in this review were that the references were messy. One of the main factors was that I had consistently put the name of the Web site after the name of the article (like {{cite web}} does), and it did look messy. I chose instead to prepend the name of the pages with the name of the Web site. There were a few that I'd missed though, which I'm going through and fixing. If the consensus is that I should put publishers back in, I'm happy to oblige, but I'd rather not get caught in a reviewer preference conflict vortex. Comments?
  • Citations are WP articles
Thanks, I'd missed one or two. I've changed the references that point to Biodiesel - particularly the peanut oil related ones. The few that are left are legimate notes that point to sections of WP articles that the reader might not know to look at without the note.
  • Unsourced notes
I think that the orange oil/lemon oil note is the only such note. It was added because a reviewer wanted to know why these two oils weren't on the list, and requested a note. Could you extend grace on this one, please? See the note above on inclusion criteria. The note has been removed.
  • Order of reference sections
Done. I didn't know about WP:GTL, thanks.
  • Vague or confusing statements.
Fixed the ones that you mentioned. Any left?
  • Notes outside punctuation
There were one or two exceptions that are now fixed.

Hope that addresses all of your objections. Anything else? --Waitak 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't think properly sourcing content with a widely used template ({{cite web}}) was a style issue. The references are better than before, but lacking info. WP:WIAFL describes the "...appropriate use of citations". It's important to source things properly using some kind of style, which the templates follow, and be consistent throughout the article. There are still many notes which only have a title and and an accessdate. Putting the website in the title is very confusing, because it reads like "title: subtitle", which it's not.
  • I just scanned over the list, and counted seven sentences lacking periods, and one with period after footnote.
  • The two statements I mentioned are the same as they were before. Also Rice bran oil, appealing because of lower cost. Lower than what? Weasel words: One of the more promising biofuel sources, according to some.
  • I still don't know where you got your info for Canola oil, other than that it's somewhere in www.canolainfo.org. If I'm viewing the list on paper, or anywhere that I can't see the hyperlink, all I know is it's something called "Canola Oil." This applies to all cites of a front page of a website, unless you really got your info from the front page.
  • You are still using a Wikipedia article as a source for the claim that Soybean oil accounts for half of the world's edible oil production.

This is a very good list, much better than most on Wikipedia. I think it needs a bit more work before meeting the featured criteria, though. After taking a closer look at some other FL's and FLC's, it seems I'm applying a standard that's more like what's required for Featured Article status these days rather than FL, so I'm softening my vote from strong oppose to oppose for now. heqs 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:GTL is not nearly as rigid as heqs implies and even its ordering is recently under debate on its talk page. Rmhermen 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The general order of sections has been unchanged for as long as I've been using it as a guide (4-5 months, I think), and nearly all Wikipedia guidelines are in a state of constant flux. I realize that this is more of a personal objection. heqs 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on that, I've moved General references after See also. I really think it fits better there. I kept the other recommendations on order. --Waitak 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have done a copyedit. I hope I have found the eight periods that worried User:Heqs so much (although I imagine it would have been easier to correct them yourself rather than spotting them and raising them as an issue). I have also refactored the lead slightly and added short introductory paragraphs to most sections. I am not convinced that every entry on the list needs a footnote (although clearly the rarer ones do), nor that the cite templates are a strict requirement (I must admit that I rarely use them myself). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Cite template issue - again, I'm happy to do whatever consensus says, but am not willing to get caught in the crossfire between reviewers' conflicting preferences.
  • Thanks for taking care of the missing periods, ALoan
  • Sorry about that. I'd fixed the peanut oil, cottonseed oil and canola oil entry problems that you pointed out, but lost an edit in a browser crash. Fixed now. I've reworded the rice bran and jatropha oil blurbs as well.
  • The source is FAOSTAT, but I don't have time to figure out all of the parameters to their new search engine to the point where I could give a simple ref backing up the statement. Since people seem to feel strongly about not pointing to WP articles in lists, I've deleted the statement. Sigh.
I think that's everything. Can we put this thing to bed now, please? --Waitak 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what crossfire you're referring to - earlier, Renata made the suggestion to convert to {{cite web}} and cite.php where possible - all I'm saying is that you should finish filling in the fields of the template where possible. By "messy" it seems you think you think Renata meant there was "too much info" or something like that, that's not at all how I interpreted it - on the contrary, the info should just be slotted into a more standard format so the references can be more easily accessed and evaluated. Congrats on the successful FLC. heqs 09:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)