Talk:Saffron/Archive 2

Minor Edition Problems

Greetings Mate, first of all thanks for this wonderfull and well done article. Below you will find just nit picking on wording and editing. Since I'm not an Wikipedia editor (this is my first talk), I may be completely off base.  :)

1. On Modern Trade - "For example, they may look for threads exhibiting a vivid crimson colouring." - I think you can go wihtout the For Example here.
2. On Gradding: "These are determined by finding the spice's crocin content. This is determined by finding the saffron's spectroscopic absorbance (Aλ = − log(I / I0), with Aλ as absorbance)." - The repetition caused by 'These are determined by' and 'This is determined by' does not sound good. I would change it for something like "The saffron's spectroscopic absorbance (Aλ = − log(I / I0), with Aλ as absorbance) is used to determine the spice's crocin content."
3. On Gradding: "However, despite these attempts at quality control and standardisation, a rich history of saffron adulteration continues into the present." - You could just take that However on the start of the phras. You already used it on the second last phrase of the previous paragraph.  :) Samuel Sol 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed them. Thank you. Saravask 22:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

A hidden URL http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ was just inserted into the article. The URL leads to a site that hosts advertising, is not Wikipedia-affiliated, and has nothing compelling to offer on the subject of saffron — instead, it only functions as a search engine, a function that Wikipedia already has through its search box and interwiki links. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Links to commercial sites are fine, as long as they have "meaningful" and "relevant" content about saffron that is not already in this article. Thanks. Saravask 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to be honest

If this were still on FAC, I would now be objecting for "Too Many Pictures." This is out of hand, it looks like a photo-essay. Pick and choose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Saravask 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's really rather depressing to have had to lose so many fantastic images. The article has lost quite a lot of beauty. But I completely understand the reason for doing so, and it does help make the article a little less crowded in some areas. I still regret the removal of a few images, though; Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected.jpg in particular (which used to be the top image of this article) deeply impressed me, and I'd expected it to appear on the main page if this article was ever nominated to appear there, but that will no longer be possible with it removed. Ah well, we do provide a link to the Commons, where they should all be available, so that'll have to do. -Silence 03:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected.jpg (which is nice) could replace Image:Crocus sativus saffron Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks beautiful. But there's been a bit of controversy over whether Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected.jpg even shows C. sativus flowers. See this comment by MPF. Saravask 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Article split

Unless people object, I plan on splitting just split this article into four two pieces:

1. Saffron
2. Biology and chemistry of saffron
3. History of saffron
4. Usage of saffron

My goal is to get the main article under 40 70 kb (it was at 90–91 kb when featured). History of saffron is up for peer review here. Saravask 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A summary-style split-off of history certainly looks like a very good idea, and I have no reason to think biology and chemistry wouldn't work well too.

I can't put me finger on why, but I feel like Usage of saffron wouldn't be a good article on its own. I can't pinpoint why, though. Maybe because "usage" is a wishy-washy word. Maybe because the culinary uses and medicinal uses are (in today's world at least) entirely separate. Perhaps "Saffron in medicine" could be stand-alone, I'm not sure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• "History" is the only one of those that really seems like a good and necessary article to me. "Usage" is a fine size, and "biology and chemistry" needs clarification and term-explanation on this article before we can even start worrying about splitting. -Silence 06:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask, if it weren't for the maximum size recommendation, would the article be split at all? (I agree that "History" is the cleanest to separate.)--Curtis Clark 07:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that history is the most logical- and probably the only necessary daughter article.--nixie 16:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Saravask 19:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

"... I'd expected it to appear on the main page if this article was ever nominated to appear there ..."

Just for the record, I am adamantly opposed to the idea that this article should be nominated for the main page TFA. From past experience, I’ve learned that main page featuring effectively inaugurates an extended period of "special extended featured article mutilation" (a telling transmogrification of a phrase I've often heard to describe FACs). I don't want this article being swarmed by an inundation of dross, cruft, and utter crap. Yes, I am aware of WP:AGF — but that doesn’t mean that we should naively believe that all non-vandal contributors know exactly what the hell they think they are doing when they add their own "two cents" to a featured article like this.

• I've also inserted an image gallery. I imagine this is a rather harmless thing to do, but others are free to chime in. I’ve also included therein the two dubious images. Saravask 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this, but I tend to agree (and must admit that I assumed all FA would eventually appear on the front page). When Black pepper appeared, I was able to make a substantive edit, but then, I cleaned up a lot of vandalism and cruft in the ensuing weeks.--Curtis Clark 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It took weeks to clean up the cruft? Why not just revert to the pre-TFA version (immediately before it appeared as Today's featured article on the main page), then look through a before-and-after TFA diff (before and after it was on the main page) and retroactively incorporate only the useful changes? Addressing your last comment: no — given that usually seven or more articles are promoted to FA status in a given week (for example, note this week's new featured articles) and many new nominations for TFA each week (note how many were nominated just in the last week), there are many dozens of FAs that have been around for many months — or even years — without being on the main page. Saravask 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)