Self nomination. Peer review. I've heavily copyedited and researched this article in response to some very productive comments given by generous folks during the peer review. Saravask 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks very well written and well researched. It is a bit long, but not prohibitively so. - Cuivienen 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Well written and researched.---( Smerk)
- Comment: Based on a quick glance, this article looks great. I'll read it indepth later before I vote. - Mgm| (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support: 54KB is fine for an article completely on subject. If there is a prohibitive length then there should not be. I'm not sure there needs to be 47 footnotes referencing almost every fact - but I suppose they do no harm and this does seem to be the way things are going here now. This is a good informative and comprehensive page, well up to FA standard, and will doubtless soon be on the main page where it deserves to be. Giano | talk 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I gave some comments on WP:PR that have been addressed. The font size in the floating tables seems a little small, and it could do with some copyediting here and there (Swiss town of Basil? Are you sure?), but generally excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any reason why the chemicals mentioned in the article are not linked? Do those articles exist at all? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- No reason — just forgetfulness. They exist. I just wikilinked to them.
Saravask
16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also found the wording of the paragraph dealing with the etymology a bit confusing. Do "these terms" refer to the Spanish and Italian words only? Are you implying a connection between the Arabic word and the Latin word? --
Rune Welsh |
ταλκ |
Esperanza
17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. In the Romance languages, the term for saffron is a loan word from the Arabic. For example, see
this. This is also what other references state. I tried clarifying that paragraph as well.
Saravask
22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Support now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. In the Romance languages, the term for saffron is a loan word from the Arabic. For example, see
this. This is also what other references state. I tried clarifying that paragraph as well.
Saravask
22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also found the wording of the paragraph dealing with the etymology a bit confusing. Do "these terms" refer to the Spanish and Italian words only? Are you implying a connection between the Arabic word and the Latin word? --
Rune Welsh |
ταλκ |
Esperanza
17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support per above.
- Oppose The article needs to be re-formatted. History usually comes first, not in the middle of the article, among other issues. User:PZFUN/signature 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's important to define and explain what saffron is before discussing its history, so placing the botany section before the history is IMO entirely appropriate. - Mgm| (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with Mgml here. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Mgm as well.-- Curtis Clark 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree also. It would be odd for an article about a plant and its products to start with history of cultural usage. -- Oldak Quill 08:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree. History only need come first for articles where the history comes first chronologically; thus "etymology" is the first section in most articles where the word is of issue, "history" for human inventions and nations and so on, "life" before "legacy" in bios, etc. But for a plant or animal, "history" does not come first in most cases simply because the critter existed prehistorically! - Silence 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, because "wow." Great article. The lead image is a bit dim, however; please yell at me if I forget to do some Photoshop correction to it after I get home this evening. Postdlf 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Love the inline citations with footnotes. Agree with Pall that history should go first, but it is really a minor think, easily fixed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm| (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very nicely done. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One amazing article. — Hollow Wilerding 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support Excellent article deeptrivia ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Everything looks great. Very visualy appealing too. Tobyk777 02:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, great work from Saravask. Disagree strongly with the complaits about the position of the history section, the plant was a plant before it had a history of human use, this set up is well established in other recent featured food articles like butter and black pepper.-- nixie 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I fact-checked every one of the online footnoted references and came up with the following nitpicking comments: the first reference claims it is "by weight the world's most expensive spice" but the book was published in 1969. What are "transient snows"? The "volatile (aroma-yielding)" might upset a chemist reader, probably should pre-empt their edit with "150 volatile and aroma-yielding...". "powerful contributor to saffron's fragrance.[14]" is referenced to page 1 but the info is on page 3...same with the "saffron, dried hay like" quote. Its eupeptic properties are not mentioned in that footnote (37 Park). There is a footnote 48 in "Grading" that should be 47. I totally don't see where that Kashmir-Iran mix in the last footnote (35 Tarvand ) is coming from. -- maclean25 09:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello. I made some
fixes to clean up the errors you pointed out. Let me know if there are other issues.
Saravask
15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention on the previous issues. Do you really want more? ok...the LD50 in the "Medicinal" section, is that for humans...or mice, or monkeys, or cute furry bunnies? -- maclean25 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Abdullaev 2002 paper states that the LD50 figure was "indicate[d]" by "animal studies", so I put that in. Saravask 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, great article. — Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support Marvelous work! Congratulations! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great comprehensiveness and research. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Recent work has made a great article better.-- Curtis Clark 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The proximate analysis chart is very squished in its formatting; it should be made slightly wider. - Blake's Star 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I widened it to 225px. Saravask 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Looks good, even though I haven't looked at it properly. Uncke Herb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support Even though I haven't read it properly, 61 notes and 32 entries in the reference section is quite impressive.
- Oops, I just noticed I didn't sign The Catfish 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Give a second look t the captions. You have the same one twice, and the ones about the chemical makeup seem to be cut off. Spend about 5, 10 minutes fixing this and I'll support. On the whole a great article. -- HereToHelp ( talk) 14:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello. I elaborated on the image titles. But the chemicals' captions look OK to me. Could it be a problem with your internet browser? Let me know. Saravask 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- HeretoHelp, A raw figure of footnotes does not necessarily mean that an article is more referenced. =Nichalp «Talk»=
- Comment {{ Medlineplus}} seems to have been created specifically for this article. May I suggest removing it? It is a template for an arbitrary external website and the template implies it is a sister project, which it is not (a similar template for Uncyclopedia was deleted for these reasons).— jiy ( talk) 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it. I had copied the code from the Spanish Wikipedia, and didn't know there was a policy against it. Saravask 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support Well-researched and comprehensive.— jiy ( talk) 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Tobyk777 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I see the nominator has put a lot of effort into this article. As a lover of botany and food-related articles, I am pleased to find such devotion. I had an impression that images were a bit disorganized, but now it appears to have been mostly fixed. -- BorgQueen 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Self nomination. Peer review. I've heavily copyedited and researched this article in response to some very productive comments given by generous folks during the peer review. Saravask 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks very well written and well researched. It is a bit long, but not prohibitively so. - Cuivienen 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Well written and researched.---( Smerk)
- Comment: Based on a quick glance, this article looks great. I'll read it indepth later before I vote. - Mgm| (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support: 54KB is fine for an article completely on subject. If there is a prohibitive length then there should not be. I'm not sure there needs to be 47 footnotes referencing almost every fact - but I suppose they do no harm and this does seem to be the way things are going here now. This is a good informative and comprehensive page, well up to FA standard, and will doubtless soon be on the main page where it deserves to be. Giano | talk 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I gave some comments on WP:PR that have been addressed. The font size in the floating tables seems a little small, and it could do with some copyediting here and there (Swiss town of Basil? Are you sure?), but generally excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any reason why the chemicals mentioned in the article are not linked? Do those articles exist at all? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- No reason — just forgetfulness. They exist. I just wikilinked to them.
Saravask
16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also found the wording of the paragraph dealing with the etymology a bit confusing. Do "these terms" refer to the Spanish and Italian words only? Are you implying a connection between the Arabic word and the Latin word? --
Rune Welsh |
ταλκ |
Esperanza
17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. In the Romance languages, the term for saffron is a loan word from the Arabic. For example, see
this. This is also what other references state. I tried clarifying that paragraph as well.
Saravask
22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Support now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. In the Romance languages, the term for saffron is a loan word from the Arabic. For example, see
this. This is also what other references state. I tried clarifying that paragraph as well.
Saravask
22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also found the wording of the paragraph dealing with the etymology a bit confusing. Do "these terms" refer to the Spanish and Italian words only? Are you implying a connection between the Arabic word and the Latin word? --
Rune Welsh |
ταλκ |
Esperanza
17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support per above.
- Oppose The article needs to be re-formatted. History usually comes first, not in the middle of the article, among other issues. User:PZFUN/signature 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's important to define and explain what saffron is before discussing its history, so placing the botany section before the history is IMO entirely appropriate. - Mgm| (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with Mgml here. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Mgm as well.-- Curtis Clark 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree also. It would be odd for an article about a plant and its products to start with history of cultural usage. -- Oldak Quill 08:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree. History only need come first for articles where the history comes first chronologically; thus "etymology" is the first section in most articles where the word is of issue, "history" for human inventions and nations and so on, "life" before "legacy" in bios, etc. But for a plant or animal, "history" does not come first in most cases simply because the critter existed prehistorically! - Silence 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, because "wow." Great article. The lead image is a bit dim, however; please yell at me if I forget to do some Photoshop correction to it after I get home this evening. Postdlf 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Love the inline citations with footnotes. Agree with Pall that history should go first, but it is really a minor think, easily fixed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm| (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very nicely done. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One amazing article. — Hollow Wilerding 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support Excellent article deeptrivia ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Everything looks great. Very visualy appealing too. Tobyk777 02:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, great work from Saravask. Disagree strongly with the complaits about the position of the history section, the plant was a plant before it had a history of human use, this set up is well established in other recent featured food articles like butter and black pepper.-- nixie 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I fact-checked every one of the online footnoted references and came up with the following nitpicking comments: the first reference claims it is "by weight the world's most expensive spice" but the book was published in 1969. What are "transient snows"? The "volatile (aroma-yielding)" might upset a chemist reader, probably should pre-empt their edit with "150 volatile and aroma-yielding...". "powerful contributor to saffron's fragrance.[14]" is referenced to page 1 but the info is on page 3...same with the "saffron, dried hay like" quote. Its eupeptic properties are not mentioned in that footnote (37 Park). There is a footnote 48 in "Grading" that should be 47. I totally don't see where that Kashmir-Iran mix in the last footnote (35 Tarvand ) is coming from. -- maclean25 09:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello. I made some
fixes to clean up the errors you pointed out. Let me know if there are other issues.
Saravask
15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention on the previous issues. Do you really want more? ok...the LD50 in the "Medicinal" section, is that for humans...or mice, or monkeys, or cute furry bunnies? -- maclean25 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Abdullaev 2002 paper states that the LD50 figure was "indicate[d]" by "animal studies", so I put that in. Saravask 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, great article. — Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support Marvelous work! Congratulations! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great comprehensiveness and research. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Recent work has made a great article better.-- Curtis Clark 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The proximate analysis chart is very squished in its formatting; it should be made slightly wider. - Blake's Star 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I widened it to 225px. Saravask 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Looks good, even though I haven't looked at it properly. Uncke Herb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support Even though I haven't read it properly, 61 notes and 32 entries in the reference section is quite impressive.
- Oops, I just noticed I didn't sign The Catfish 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Give a second look t the captions. You have the same one twice, and the ones about the chemical makeup seem to be cut off. Spend about 5, 10 minutes fixing this and I'll support. On the whole a great article. -- HereToHelp ( talk) 14:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello. I elaborated on the image titles. But the chemicals' captions look OK to me. Could it be a problem with your internet browser? Let me know. Saravask 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- HeretoHelp, A raw figure of footnotes does not necessarily mean that an article is more referenced. =Nichalp «Talk»=
- Comment {{ Medlineplus}} seems to have been created specifically for this article. May I suggest removing it? It is a template for an arbitrary external website and the template implies it is a sister project, which it is not (a similar template for Uncyclopedia was deleted for these reasons).— jiy ( talk) 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it. I had copied the code from the Spanish Wikipedia, and didn't know there was a policy against it. Saravask 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support Well-researched and comprehensive.— jiy ( talk) 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Tobyk777 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I see the nominator has put a lot of effort into this article. As a lover of botany and food-related articles, I am pleased to find such devotion. I had an impression that images were a bit disorganized, but now it appears to have been mostly fixed. -- BorgQueen 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)