Talk:Marmalade/GA1

GA review

Unsuccessful.

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Floating Orb (talk · contribs) 16:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 19:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @David Eppstein, I can't wait to work with you on this review! Floating Orb (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article is well-written, and mostly adequately sourced (GACR #1). But in its overall organization and content it comes across as rather haphazard and lacking. Several sections appear to be random collections of relevant facts rather than covering the subject in an appropriately broad way (GACR #3a) and some appear to be overdetailed (GACR #3b):

The discovery section focuses on quince jelly. How is this relevant to the discovery of marmalade? Quinces are not citrus. Surely it would be appropriate here to briefly summarize the history of fruit jelly in general, not calling it marmalade, before discussing the earliest citrus jellies. Also, when was Yuja-cheong first developed? Since it is a citrus jelly, shouldn't it be included in the history? Reading between the lines, it appears to be the case that the word "marmalade" did originally refer to to quince jelly and only later was its meaning transferred to citrus jelly, but an encyclopedia article is on a topic not a word (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and this one appears to be on the topic of citrus jelly. So while the shift in meaning should definitely be discussed, there should be a greater focus on the development of citrus jelly and comparatively less detail about the older development and naming of quince jelly, a topic with its own separate article.
Why does the legal definition section cover only EU and Canada when other countries have separate regulations? Especially for the US see https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cpg-sec-550575-marmalade and https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/orange-marmalade-grades-and-standards Also, the EU directive includes a more detailed specification of marmalade; surely that should be discussed rather than merely quoting the directive number?
Only one major manufacturer of commercial marmalade (Dundee) is covered, in its own top-level section. This section seems overlong to the point of promotionalism and would maybe be better as a subsection of history. Another major brand, Keiller's marmalade, is relegated to a see-also link (see neutrality, GACR #4). But also, something I think would be helpful to see in this article would be some sort of breakdown of what the major commercial brands are, how big the market is for marmalade in different parts of the world, and how that market is split among the big producers. Nothing of the sort can be found in the article, except buried in a footnote in the Paddington subsection.
The collection of popular culture topics is badly organized (Paddington and everything else, but with everything else mistitled). There is no real source for the use of marmalade in Sense and Sensibility (only the novel itself; but Google scholar has many possibilities for publications mentioning both the novel and the condiment [1]) and no analysis of whether the use in that novel has any literary or historical significance. There are plenty of other novels featuring marmalade (Charmed Life comes to mind); why that one? My preference, though, would be to include only material discussed by secondary sources, such as doi:10.1093/notesj/gjz045 (Alice in Wonderland). There is no bigger picture, if there is one, of how the literary use of marmalade might reflect issues of class or fashion and their changes over time; instead, this section just comes across as a collection of WP:TRIVIA.
There is a large scientific literature on marmalade [2] none of which is cited. Should some of it be?

Other issues:

Little or none of the body of the article is summarized in the lead, and little or none of the lead is repeated in greater detail in the body of the article (GACR #1b).
Why is Citrus taiwanica a relevant see-also link? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the list of fruits from which marmalade can be made?
Among the sources, [1] (Polaners), [5] (Seville Oranges, with a bizarre author format), [24] (Fazer.fi), and [31] (Wegmans) appear to be promotional web sites, and [6] (Curly Girl) and [33] (Bay Bottles) appears to be personal blogs, not reliable. [10] (Salt Sugar Smoke) is missing relevant page numbers. [14] (Etymological Dictionary of the Portuguese Language) and [16] (Klein’s Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary) appear to be books given only by title, and at the very least need publisher, year, and relevant pages.
All images appear relevant to the overall topic of the article, properly captioned, and properly licensed, but their relevance to the sections where they were placed is unclear (GACR #6)
Earwig found close paraphrasing between this article and https://www.thedarlingacademy.com/articles/classic-breakfast-marmalade/ but the dates indicate they copied from us rather than vice versa; not a problem for us. There is, however, a problem with close paraphrasing between our article and http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061261128384.html (an article from 2003 so we must have copied from them, likely long ago). The problem is in the "Time changes" section, which needs to be rewritten from scratch.
The article appears stable, with no recent edit wars (GACR #5)

It's a good start, but unfortunately I think it's very far from meeting GACR #1b (lead), #2b (reliability of sources), #2d (plagiarism) and #3 (broadness and detail of coverage). As such, I think the best outcome is to quick fail it for now (WP:GAFAIL #1) to give you enough time to address these issues before (I hope) coming back with an improved article and another nomination of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I changed it slightly before you had reviewed it. I made Dundee just be a "Origins" subsection. Floating Orb (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up a lot. Do you like it more now? Floating Orb (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think significant time is needed to make thorough rather than quick fixes. A lot of the issues I mentioned have still not been addressed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for reviewing, I'll see what I can do. Floating Orb (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is done. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 16:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.