Jump to content

Talk:Apple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleApple has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 31, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 27, 2008Good article reassessmentListed
August 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 18, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
September 4, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
August 5, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

The redirect Apple Popularity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 18 § Apple Popularity until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing the references

[edit]

Due to the very large number of references I think using something like shortened footnote template (Template:Sfn) so at least the book, journal, and magazine references can be organized into alphabetical lists may be helpful to readers. An example of the final result would be like the references for Ludwigsburg Palace as organized by Vami IV. Would this be too disruptive? Do other editors prefer the current inline citation for being easier to quickly use? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of what the Highway Code calls an "unusual manoeuvre" in the middle of the road, given that there is a clearly established citation format here (policy forbids a change in this situation). What is escaping me here is why, given that this is a Good Article already, we'd want to start rearranging the deckchairs? And actually, 114 refs is not exceptionally large... I've just tidied up Anggun at GAR, purely by chance, and it has 350 refs post-cleanup: a little while ago it had 408. If you're thinking of FAC then good luck with that; if you've not done one before, I'd suggest a smaller topic to start with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I asked rather than just jumping in. Thanks. I had previously changed Penstemon over to sfn citation and had not been told it was an "unusual manoeuvre". Probably because no other active editors are watching the page, unlike here.
I was not yet thinking about FAC, it seems like something that is not well suited to my skill set. Just looking at the article with an eye for making it a bit more useful and pretty with the things I know how to do. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This apple is pretty shiny already for a GA. There are many other botany articles that could certainly do with a bit of love and attention, if not careful shining up with a soft cloth ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]