# Talk:Emmer

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emmer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I haven't been too active on Wikipedia lately, but I would be interested in reviewing this article. Obviously, you're quite experienced here, so I imagine the review process will be very straightforward. Anonymous 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
No obvious spelling or grammatical errors. Well-written overall, in a way that non-experts should have little trouble understanding. I still ended up finding several things I would change, particularly in the lead, that are listed down below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
The reference section looks mostly good. I did find a couple of very minor issues. Refs 16 and 19 passed spot checks. However, I found issues with three other sources, one of which came up before I had even deliberately started spot checking. I also have some concerns about potential original research. Earwig pinged a few things online that all appear to be copied from here rather than vice versa.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The coverage seems good and broad. There really is quite a lot of information if you wanted to add more, especially given that many of the sources appear rather dated. Here are some I found, if you're curious: [1], [2], [3], [4] 2 is particularly interesting, as it suggest that all tetraploid wheats are derived from emmer. Still, I think the coverage present will pass for a good article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images appear to be usable and used appropriately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I've gotten used to your quality, engaging work, so I was a little surprised to find as many issues as I did. Still, I recognize that many of them are from before you began working on the article. I hope you can get everything sorted out without too much trouble.
Well, thank you. The tasks and skills of editing are, I find, quite different from those for reviewing (and self-reviewing implies some sort of mental contortion), which is one reason why GAN is a good idea rather than self-certification... (and a good reason why demanding that everyone should do both isn't going to work).


### Miscellaneous comments
Wouldn't it be better to introduce this plant with the word "species" rather than the more ambiguous "type"?
Done.
The fact that it is tetraploid doesn't seem significant enough to the average reader to warrant being the second sentence in the lead. Its hybrid status might be more obviously meaningful to mention.
Done both.
The lead is short enough that I imagine it could be condensed into one paragraph.
Nicer as two, maybe.
Its status in Judaism seems important enough to be mentioned in the lead.
"may be one of the five species". Maybe not lead material.
Lang templates are not consistently used for for foreign language text, and they are sometimes used where transliteration templates would be more appropriate (which are also missing in some places).
Added templates.
Another language-related comment: it strikes me as odd that the Hebrew term is included in both Hebrew and Latin text, while the Aramaic term is only in Latin text.
Guess a Hebrew speaker made the insertion. See next.
While checking the source (ref 27) before making the last comment to see if perhaps only the Latin form of the Aramaic term was included, I realized I could not find any mention of Hebrew or Aramaic names anywhere. It was quite a long source, so I may have missed it.
Removed the language mentions.
The last section could probably be condensed into two paragraphs.
Done.
The sentence Avni et al., 2017 provides a complete emmer genome. is orphaned in its own paragraph. Consider expanding on it or merging it with another paragraph.
Merged.
Is Kotschy normally known mononymously? If not, I'd advise writing his full name.
Spelt out. In older botanical usage, surnames were de rigueur.
...this relatively little-known grain has potential to improve nutrition, boost food security, foster rural development and support sustainable landcare. The claims made by this sentence seem rather bold; perhaps they could be attributed and/or explained further.
Removed as too salesy.
and often consisting of a different wheat species, spelt (T. spelta). Spelt is mentioned several times before this point, but its scientific name is only given here, for its last usage.
Fixed.
One minor note about the sources is that "Nat Geo Food" does not seem to currently be a functional website; it just redirects to the normal National Geographic website.
Updated.
Ref 21 is rather bare; only a name and a title. Ref 17 is only a title and link.
Both were short-form refs; linked their sources (in 'Sources').
Ref 11 doesn't support the entirety of the claims made leading up to it. It states that there are two valid taxonomic systems, but it doesn't explain them.
Removed the digression.
Ref 40 does not appear to support the absolute claim that all varieties and hybrids of wheat are unsuitable for people with gluten-related disorders and wheat allergies (as a grammatical point of confusion, the sentence ends with "among others", with it being unclear what the "others" are in this context).
Rewritten, replaced ref.
The last paragraph of the History of cultivation section makes broad claims and backs them up only with primary sources. Unless I'm missing something, this looks like textbook original research.
Removed its first sentence. The rest is just a report on Pliny's statements.
Good luck. Anonymous 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

All done.
There's one last thing that I think needs looking at: In parts of India, emmer wheat (in Maharashtra called खपली गहू, transcription "khapalī gahū", meaning "crusty wheat") is grown as a drought- and stress-resistant wheat variety with some work ongoing to improve yields, as a result of increased interest in this variety due to possible value for diabetics. The source is a paywalled business magazine. Maybe the claims could be rewritten and replaced based on a more scientific or agriculture-oriented source. If it can be reliably sourced and kept, the Marathi text should also have a {{lang}} template and the transcription should have a {{transliteration}} template. Anonymous 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, replaced with a more recent, scientific claim about possible use in diabetes.
Alright, I hope you'll forgive me for being bold and condensing the two brief final paragraphs into one. The article should be good now. You did a lot of work, and you did so quite rapidly. Congratulations! Anonymous 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)