Talk:Rice

message: in the 3rd paragraph of the article introduction it says 'medium-grain rice is stickier, and is used for sweet dishes, and in Italy for risotto; and sticky short-grain rice is used in Japanese sushi as it keeps its shape when cooked.' 
It says that risotto is medium grain, and sushi is short grain.
Under Food > Eating it says 'Short-grain rices include Italian Arborio rice for risotto. Medium-grain rices include Japanese sushi rice, which is slightly sticky.'
It says that risotto is short grain, and that sushi is medium grain. 5.133.46.201 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed: rewrote the 'Eating qualities' section from a better source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts its self 

message: Hi, @Chiswick Chap, I did go through the body of the article before I started making cuts to the lede.
“Domesticated”
It is absolutely redundant to mention that the grain three billion people eat is the domesticated variety. Because obviously something that widespread would become domesticated. Not to say that talking about rice’s domestication is redudant. Just that the lede is not the place for superfluous details like that the most widely consumed crops is in fact domesticated.
: No, it's absolutely necessary to mention, right up front, that this is a major domesticated grain. Since Wikipedia articles are required to stand alone, it is right that a cereal article states in terms that the plant has been domesticated: readers must not be expected to navigate to another article (which isn't even named in your version!) in order to discover key facts. People eat a variety of wild and semi-wild cereals, and the first farmers ate only undomesticated crops for some thousands of years before the plants could be said to have been domesticated, so it's very far from redundant. And by the way, please sign your posts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: People who have English as a second or third language can readily be confused by unclear wording, and even native speakers can stumble over poorly-written sentences. Our goal is to be as clear as possible, not to try to get away with as much as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Terseness is not the goal; clarity is. You are totally allowed to have your own way of writing, but Wikipedia articles need to be written for a wide audience. The definite article is required in British English (and in Commonwealth English), so it's mandatory in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: In a similar vein, I don’t agree with you reverting back
the “it” is talking about Asian rice since I put the part about African rice in its own subclause. I don’t think anyone would mix those two up from how I phrased it.
: People who have English as a second or third language can readily be confused by unclear wording, and even native speakers can stumble over poorly-written sentences. Our goal is to be as clear as possible, not to try to get away with as much as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence 

message: I took an issue with “the staple food”, because using the definite article gives the impression that people who eat rice only eat rice as their staple. It’s might be a personal thing, but I felt saying “a staple food” seemed clearersince people eating rice, also probably eat a lot of other staples in their diets? Also has the benefit of, “Rice is a cereal and staple food…..”, sounding a lot sharper by virtue of being terser.
: Terseness is not the goal; clarity is. You are totally allowed to have your own way of writing, but Wikipedia articles need to be written for a wide audience. The definite article is required in British English (and in Commonwealth English), so it's mandatory in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “the staple food”