Durio graveolens has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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 19, 2019. ( Reviewed version).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 29 November 2017 by reviewer Joe Decker ( talk · contribs). Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested that a range map be included in this article to improve its quality. Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Malaysia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Durio graveolens appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 October 2019 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that despite a name meaning "strong-smelling durian", Durio graveolens has been described as odorless? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Durio graveolens.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Durio graveolens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm gonna fix grammar mistakes on the article but if I have questions I'll ask here    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• I don't think you need to wikilink tree per wp:overlink    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Unlinked. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• When introducing a person, even if you wikilink them (like Odoardo Beccari), you should still give their nationality and occupation for a little bit of context    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Added nationalities and occupations for Odoardo Beccari, Reinier Cornelis Bakhuizen Van Den Brink, John Wyatt-Smith, André Joseph Guillaume Henri Kostermans, and Wertit Soegeng-Reksodihardjo. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• "graveolens ('strong smelling' or 'rank')" deriving from what language?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Added {{ lang}} template. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• What is cogenitor?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • A mispelling of congener, apparently. fixed. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• "These varieties may be different species, but currently it is not known for sure" I don't know if those're the right words, maybe "but currently there is no consensus"?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Updated -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Is it durian simpor or Durian simpor?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think it's a proper noun, if that's what you're asking? -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Why are you inconsistent in giving translations?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't have a dictionary of Iban or Batak, if that's what you mean. The sources commonly don't state etymology for vernacular names. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You could use this    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, that dictionary does not contain any of the terms used in the article. -- Nessie ( talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Note for future: the lead is completely separate from the body. When mentioning a person for the first time in the body of the article, you have to use their full name and wikilink them (so even though you first mention Beccari in the lead, you have to use his full name in the body on his first mention)    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • OK-- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Do you have to use "coriaceous" or could you just use "leathery"? The same goes for glabrous when you could say smooth (also glabrous redirects to hair so it made me think glabrous meant hairy) or vernicose when you could say shiny    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The jargon has specific meaning. Only mammals have hair, so saying a plant is not hairy is not very scientific. The link was piped to Glabrousness#In botany, but the article moved and no one checked "what links here". I updated the link in the article to Glossary of botanical terms#glabrous. Coriaceous means leathery in texture, and not in say smell or any other way something can be leathery. I added a parenthetical there. The physical description is in the weeds of the article, and to differentiate a species from related ones you have to get technical. I think the audience for that section is going to be different than for the rest of the article. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Could be good to say the petiole is the stalk that attaches the leaf to the stem    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Added a parenthetical.-- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• It might be better to use laymen words then put the technical term in parentheses, like "The leaf stipules drop early (caducous)". Also there's really no reason to use the word caducous here since it's more like a vocab word than a technical term    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • 'Caducous' does have a specific meaning different from other biological disciplines. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

It’s really only used in the context of leaves and petals    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Right, plants do not have caducous tails that are reabsorbed in development, they have caducous leaves that fall early. I don't think the term applies in plants to parts being reabsorbed. -- Nessie ( talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Just because there's a specific word for leaves falling early doesn't mean you have to use it    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  15:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• You use a lot of unnecessarily big words. "Tumescent" is not a technical botanical term, for example, it's just a big word    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why is that bad? If the definition is linked, and the text also explains it, I do not think readers will be lost. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

whenever possible, don’t add unnecessary confusion by showing off your impressive vocabulary    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

That's a little accusatory. The terms used are all from the sources, and not added by me. In this case, it's what Odoardo Beccari wrote. I assume that if a term is used in the original formal species description it was not added just to show off impressive vocabulary. -- Nessie ( talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Sometimes it is, actually. We aim to summarize, and that means we do not have to recite verbatim. If you can use a simpler word, use a simpler word. If you feel it's very necessary (which is oftentimes the case, as with petiole and colporate) you give the technical term, but as far as I'm aware, "tumescent" is not a technical word, it's an SAT word. The same goes for globose    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Those words only exist to confuse people    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  21:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

That seems a bit of an extreme exaggeration. The synonyms listed on Wiktionary are all less common than tumescent, except for 'turgid', which sounds lewd and means 'swollen with fluid' and not 'becoming swollen with fluid' like tumescent does. What word do you think is better? -- Nessie ( talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• What's the anther?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Wikilinked.-- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oval is a common enough word that you don't have to link, but why would you say "globose" when you could say "spherical"?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Because globose is only nearly spherical, similar to how our globe is an oblate spheroid. It shares etymology with 'globular'. Both ovoid and globose are kind of spherical, but different degrees. In any event, I retargeted the links and added a parenthetical.-- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Or you could say “nearly spherical” instead of complicating everything with wiki links    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• You wikilink capitate to stigma (botany) right before you wikilink stigma again    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Would a reader who wanted more information on stigmas know to click on "capitate" or vice-versa? Should I create a stub for capitate?-- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You didn’t even explain what capitate mean. A link to stigma doesn’t help the reader understand    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

It was not a link to Stigma (botany), it ws a link to Stigma (botany)#Shape, where it explains the term in reference to the shape of the stigma in the first sentence. I have retargeted to Glossary of botanical terms#capitate-- Nessie ( talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• "...and is monad (solitary grains)" I don't know what this means    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Added "has". -- Nessie ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

What are the grains?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Grains of pollen. In many species the pollen grains cluster, but in this species they do not. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You should say that    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I did . -- Nessie ( talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

No you didn't, you only said "The pollen grains are monad, and do not cluster"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  21:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't understand. Do you want it to say something like "The pollen grains, which are individual grains of pollen, are monad, and do not cluster"? I'm not sure what is confusing here. -- Nessie ( talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Say "In many species the pollen grains cluster"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• You really should put the technical term in parentheses rather than the explanation of the technical term. Normally I wouldn’t see it as a problem but my brain is getting thrown around by all the parentheses, but that's just me and you don't have to do it. I will say though if you wikilink a botanical term you should still give a brief explanation of what it is in parentheses (like with glabrous and cymes)    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't think I could succinctly define a cyme without a picture, and I think adding a diagram would confuse the article. I added an explanation for glabrous. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• "D. graveolens is in the core clade Palatadurio of the genus Durio" I don't know if you said this right, do you mean Palatadurio is a subgenus?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The clade Palatadurio has not been given a rank, according to the information in the source. It may end up being a subgenus, section, or series. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• "It has three colporate (combined pore and colpus/furrow) apertures and is monad (has solitary grains)" I think you need to give more explanation as to what these terms mean. It's okay to give a sentence or two explaining botanical terms    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I broke the sentence up for clarity. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• I understand the source uses the phrase "lipstick red" but without a picture, it's hard to tell what shade of red is lipstick red, so you could say "a bright lipstick red"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if it is bright, in the copyrighted images I have seen it does not seem very radiant in tone. Plus, wouldn't that be uncited opinion? -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

it’s not OR to describe a picture. Quoting a source as saying it’s “lipstick red” does not help in describing it because it’s not an actual shade of red    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I think it does describe the picture. As the Lipstick article states, there was only one shade for decades. If you do an image search you see the same color. -- Nessie ( talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• You should specify sayur is a soup and tisane is a tea    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

All teas are tisanes, but not all tisanes are teas. I added an explanation of sayur. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Anything you say in the lead should be repeated in the body of the article, I'm looking specifically at "The yellow-fleshed kind is sometimes called durian simpor"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Moved out of lede. -- Nessie ( talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't like how overly complicated you've made this article, but I can't fail you for it so I guess I'll just pass it    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  15:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

"ริะกกะ" is not a possible morphological combination of Thai script. This is a misspelling which appears nowhere outside of Wikipedia, and I have pretty much no idea what it's supposed to be in Thai. Awkwafaba, could you please check this? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 19:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Okay, I did a bit more digging and it appears the Thai common names of these durian species are a confused mess. D. graveolens is listed in the Horticultural Science Society of Thailand's website as ทุเรียนแดง ( RTGS: thurian daeng, 'red durian'), but on the Forest Herbarium website of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, as well as this book also by the Forest Herbarium, it's listed as ทุเรียนรากเขา (thurian rak khao 'mountain-root durian'), which is close but a different word from ทุเรียนรากขา (thurian rak kha 'legged-root durian'), which is probably what the cited sources were trying to say, and which appears in a different section of the Forest Herbarium website, which is cited by the Thai Wikipedia. On the other hand, however, this horticultural study digitised by the Kasetsart University's Kamphaeng Saen Campus library has D. graveolens as ทุเรียนขั้วติด (thurian khua tit, 'attached-stem durian'), and instead attributes the name thurian rak kha to D. kutejensis. So does this master's thesis from Prince of Songkla University and this article from Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University's Advance Science Journal, as well as this article from the Thai Agricultural Research Journal. I've removed the obviously incorrect "ริะกกะ" from the article. But should the (Southern) Thai common name be retained in the article at all, given the contradicting information in the sources? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Paul 012: thank you for diving into this. Common names are usually problematic to some ° or another. I don’t speak Thai so I didn’t notice the typo. I think the article should say roughly what you said. The species has those names in Thai, but some refer to other species as well. Those sources all seem reliable, and readers searching for a common name may be thinking of either species, or not know that the term is ambiguous. I find it’s best to show the contradictions to the readers, as some editors consider deciding one over the other as original research. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 16:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 ( talk) 20:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply