Jump to content

Talk:Sesame

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Backwards copy

[edit]

The website jungledragon.com/specie/35218/sesame.html has copied from here. Please do not flag a copyvio for any match you get with that site.

The websites viralspices.com/blog/sesame-farming and growinginthegarden.com/how-to-grow-sesame-seeds have copied from here also as they have the same paragraph of text embedded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sesame/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Luiysia (talk · contribs) 16:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-written:

The style and tone of this article is good. I found some parts which could use clarification:

Under "Origins and History":

  • "It has been claimed that trading of sesame"... It would be good to give a more specific basis or origin for this claim.
    • Attributed.
  • "earning it the name of survivor crop" should clarify if this is some kind of official term or name for the crop, or a descriptor - seems based on the source that it's a descriptor but it's unclear here.
    • Attributed.

Under "Botany":

  • "The mass of 100 seeds is 0.203 g." Since previously in the paragraph it's stated that the size of the seeds varies, we should say if this is a specific cultivar or type of seed.
    • Good point, added.

Otherwise no issues.

Verifiable with no original research: Citations look good, and did not see any copyright violation.

  • Noted.

Broad in its coverage: This went into a good amount of depth, although under the section "Culinary use" could have covered the use of sesame as a flavoring or filling in Asia more, as well as uses in North America.

  • ...

Neutral: Did not find any issue with neutrality.

  • Noted.

Stable: Review of recent history did not find any edit warring.

  • Noted.

Illustrated: Good use of images and tables for information. Did not find any usage issues.

  • Noted.

Overall, good article, close to passing this, just could use a few clarifications. Thanks for reviewing my article!

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]