Talk:Olive

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Olive/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Anonymous1261 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

There is one copyright violation I need the nominator to address: https://www.plantgrower.org/olive.html. Seems to be a mirror, but want to confirm with the nominator.

Mentioning the nominator: Chiswick Chap

They copied us. We can readily demonstrate that the bits of text that match were added gradually over the years rather than all at once: an immediate tell-tale sign however is that the supposedly copied text is in small fragments, often of common phrases ("of all harvested olives", "the olive tree and its fruit", "a rich source of"): if we had lifted a paragraph from some other website, that entire paragraph would match the website text. Another tell-tale sign that they copied us, not the reverse, is that some of the text clearly summarizes other Wikipedia articles, like the mention that the olive is "one of the 'trinity' or 'triad' of basic ingredients in Mediterranean cuisine." That article (which I largely wrote, and brought to GA status) discusses Colin Renfrew's proposal of the 'triad' of wheat, olive, and grape (for bread, oil, and wine), so we really didn't copy that from some blog. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding promptly! I understand, and I'll pass it. I'm a new GA reviewer, so I may have some questions that seem obvious. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 07:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Be sure to spot-check some of the sources, and to note which ones you checked, somewhere below here.

I did spot-check 13 of them. Specifically: 10, 17, 31, 39, 44, 53, 60, 66, 74, 81, 85, 92 and 99 on this diff (I mistyped 12).

Other than that, the article is high quality.

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are a few minor errors - the list in pests and diseases section is not properly formatted and the allergenics section has too little content. As for the list, I'm working on that now. But if these are fixed I'll pass it.

   I've merged the short allergenics section. The formatting of the pests and diseases section seems fine (it isn't a list), but if you are formatting it that's fine.

   Seen and passed.

2. 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):

   I did a random check of 13 sources and found no WP:OR and all claims were verified.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.