Talk:Grapefruit

[[Category: good articles|Grapefruit]]

Did you know nomination

Some issues arose during the DYK which were discussed at WP:ERRORS. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

And all of them were resolved, and agreed to be so, during that process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

DYK discussion at WP:ERRORS

I'm really nervous about running Grapefruit (nom). Are Go Florida Grapefruit (assoc. of grapefruit sellers), Texas Sweet (twice, also grapefruit seller), this blog, this tour website, and this 130-year-old government(?) report really reliable and independent sources? The article cites two recipes (1 2) for the claim that grapefruit is used in cooking fish even though neither of those pages actually verify that claim, and drugs.com for a whole bunch of serious MEDRS claims? I think this article needs some more attention before showtime. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) These issues don't seem to be show-stoppers and don't relate to the planned hook. For example, the Florida trade association is used to verify a list of varieties which seems reasonable. The medical issue is perhaps the most serious but note that we have an entire article about that alone: Grapefruit–drug interactions. What I find puzzling is that there's zero mention of the famous Grapefruit diet but that's not a DYK showstopper either. Anyway, let's ping Chiswick Chap who nominated this as a GA and is quite diligent. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Andrew, none of the questions seem to be relevant to DYK (and I did the GAN, not the DYK). I'll have a go at fixing them, but I'd suggest that should be purely in parallel with the DYK as the matters don't intersect. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) DYK requires that the article cites reliable sources, and that it has no serious maintenance tags (including {{unreliable source}} and {{failed verification}}, which I've added). If I were to write an article that, say, only cites blogs for everything except the hook, I should think that article would be held back. That's an exaggerated case, but yeah, sources need to be reliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{u:Theleekycauldron}], I've gone through your tags and fixed all of them. Specifically: Are Go Florida Grapefruit (assoc. of grapefruit sellers), removed. Texas Sweet (twice, also grapefruit seller), Removed. this blog, Removed. this tour website, Removed. this 130-year-old government(?) report really reliable and independent sources? The legislature report is certainly reliable about what people thought at the time; it is presented here as 'an alternative explanation', which it is; whether what the people thought had a sound basis in fact is quite a different question, and doesn't matter for alternative suggestions anyway. The article cites two recipes (1 2) for the claim that grapefruit is used in cooking fish even though neither of those pages actually verify that claim Removed drugs.com for a whole bunch of serious MEDRS claims? Removed; some claims are separately verified, others are now cited to new sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Perfect, thank you! Looks great now :) Sorry you got dragged into this, Chiswick Chap, I know it wasn't your DYK nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) As others are involved, let's ping them too: REDIRECT Template:Reply to Template:Redirect category shell Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) If the article seriously fails any of the GA criteria, it should probably go to reassessment? As it currently stands, this is a GA and its timely nomination post that was the last chance of it qualifying for DYK. The DYK nomination being tossed out for any reason other than a problem with the hooks themselves seems out of scope for the DYK process.--NØ 19:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Template:+1 – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"In the New World"

@Chiswick Chap: I suppose it was the wrong way, but what I was trying to do was to not use the expression "New World" as it is mostly historical and not the clearest designation of these continents. Perhaps "in the Americas" would fit better? — Alien  3
3 3 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The expression is certainly current in modern English, at least in my diction, and I've just edited the whole article and brought it through the GAN process so that's what I've used. I don't see any need to search for a synonym as it's well-defined and in the dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Felt bit awkward to me, probably because of my not being a native speaker. Sorry for the disturbance! Cheers, — Alien  3
3 3 12:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)