This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph of bananas afflicted with Panama disease be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I think the line "1500 km north of Brisbane" in the section Australian Quarantine should be removed as the location related to the capital is not relevant to the article at all. 142.197.32.2 ( talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this should be merged with the article on it's casual agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Million Moments ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 February 2007
Please tell me what the objection is to the adjective "virulent". It's a rather normal word for an aggressive virus, fungus, etc., which seems to fit this context. Does whoever tagged the word classify it perchance into the same category as words like "violent, vicious" or something similarly emotional? -- Remotelysensed ( talk) 16:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely the whole article needs a rewrite - not just for tone, but also because some sentences are unclear or ungammatical. In addition, there is the matter of the lack of references (as highlighted at the top of the article's page). I'd have a go, but I'm currently writing a presentation about the importance of genetic diversity in crop plants, which is why I visited the page. Maybe after I've finished the assignment I'll have some time. Marchino61 ( talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I happened across this article after reading part of Dan Koeppel's book Banana: The fate of the fruit that changed the world, and I noticed that, at the very least, the "Gros Michel Era" "The Cavendish Era" and "Responce" subsections in the History section are lifted essentially word for word from the book. Therefore, I'd assume most of it needs to be deleted and replaced with something that doesn't plagiarize the original material, with references to it when appropriate. The author didn't even bother even referencing the book, despite their extensive use of it, perhaps for fear their work would be discovered. Here is the link to the revision that added all the copyrighted, incited content. -- WIDEnet ( What I've been up to, Let's Chat) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This date can't be right.
"In spite of its name, the disease probably originated in Southeast Africa and was first reported in Queensland, Australia in 1542."
Australia was not settled by the British until 1788. Queensland not settled until later. The Indigenous Australians probably didn't have bananas, and did not record dates. There's just no way this event could have occurred in Australia in 1542 and there would be record of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.49 ( talk) 05:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the first case of successful resistance in the field and is a promising step towards preventing the loss of the Cavendish cultivars that are a huge portion of banana export production and subsistence of many communities.
This sounds to my ear like a tack-on phrase lifted directly from a grant application. Hasn't the rest of the article already established the Cavendish cultivar as a commercial monoculture, with the obvious implications? — MaxEnt 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I submit the following paragraph as an example of the over-use, if not abuse, of highly technical "jargon":
"One major impediment to breeding bananas is polyploidy; Gros Michel and Cavendish bananas are triploid and thus attempts at meiosis in the plant's ovules cannot produce a viable gamete. Only rarely does the first reduction division in meiosis in the plants' flowers tidily fail completely, resulting in a euploid triploid ovule, which can be fertilized by normal haploid pollen from a diploid banana variety; a whole stem of bananas would contain only a few seeds and sometimes none. As a result, the resulting new banana variety is tetraploid, and thus contains seeds; the market for bananas is not accustomed to bananas with seeds."
How many people in the world alive today can truly comprehend the meaning of this paragraph? There is so much jargon, as far as I'm concerned it contains almost zero actual information. Is this really the best we can do? All they're really saying is that attempts so far to genetically modify the Gros Michel produce cultivars with too many seeds for commercial use. Why not just say that? 98.194.39.86 ( talk) 08:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added a large amount of text and citations after removing it from the species page. That was most of the Foc page. I have done that because it was about the disease and not the fungus itself. Invasive Spices ( talk) 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph of bananas afflicted with Panama disease be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I think the line "1500 km north of Brisbane" in the section Australian Quarantine should be removed as the location related to the capital is not relevant to the article at all. 142.197.32.2 ( talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this should be merged with the article on it's casual agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Million Moments ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 February 2007
Please tell me what the objection is to the adjective "virulent". It's a rather normal word for an aggressive virus, fungus, etc., which seems to fit this context. Does whoever tagged the word classify it perchance into the same category as words like "violent, vicious" or something similarly emotional? -- Remotelysensed ( talk) 16:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely the whole article needs a rewrite - not just for tone, but also because some sentences are unclear or ungammatical. In addition, there is the matter of the lack of references (as highlighted at the top of the article's page). I'd have a go, but I'm currently writing a presentation about the importance of genetic diversity in crop plants, which is why I visited the page. Maybe after I've finished the assignment I'll have some time. Marchino61 ( talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I happened across this article after reading part of Dan Koeppel's book Banana: The fate of the fruit that changed the world, and I noticed that, at the very least, the "Gros Michel Era" "The Cavendish Era" and "Responce" subsections in the History section are lifted essentially word for word from the book. Therefore, I'd assume most of it needs to be deleted and replaced with something that doesn't plagiarize the original material, with references to it when appropriate. The author didn't even bother even referencing the book, despite their extensive use of it, perhaps for fear their work would be discovered. Here is the link to the revision that added all the copyrighted, incited content. -- WIDEnet ( What I've been up to, Let's Chat) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This date can't be right.
"In spite of its name, the disease probably originated in Southeast Africa and was first reported in Queensland, Australia in 1542."
Australia was not settled by the British until 1788. Queensland not settled until later. The Indigenous Australians probably didn't have bananas, and did not record dates. There's just no way this event could have occurred in Australia in 1542 and there would be record of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.49 ( talk) 05:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the first case of successful resistance in the field and is a promising step towards preventing the loss of the Cavendish cultivars that are a huge portion of banana export production and subsistence of many communities.
This sounds to my ear like a tack-on phrase lifted directly from a grant application. Hasn't the rest of the article already established the Cavendish cultivar as a commercial monoculture, with the obvious implications? — MaxEnt 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I submit the following paragraph as an example of the over-use, if not abuse, of highly technical "jargon":
"One major impediment to breeding bananas is polyploidy; Gros Michel and Cavendish bananas are triploid and thus attempts at meiosis in the plant's ovules cannot produce a viable gamete. Only rarely does the first reduction division in meiosis in the plants' flowers tidily fail completely, resulting in a euploid triploid ovule, which can be fertilized by normal haploid pollen from a diploid banana variety; a whole stem of bananas would contain only a few seeds and sometimes none. As a result, the resulting new banana variety is tetraploid, and thus contains seeds; the market for bananas is not accustomed to bananas with seeds."
How many people in the world alive today can truly comprehend the meaning of this paragraph? There is so much jargon, as far as I'm concerned it contains almost zero actual information. Is this really the best we can do? All they're really saying is that attempts so far to genetically modify the Gros Michel produce cultivars with too many seeds for commercial use. Why not just say that? 98.194.39.86 ( talk) 08:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added a large amount of text and citations after removing it from the species page. That was most of the Foc page. I have done that because it was about the disease and not the fungus itself. Invasive Spices ( talk) 24 November 2021 (UTC)