Talk:Apricot/GA1: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MisawaSakura (talk · contribs) 23:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review:

Accurate –

Prose –

MOS –

Broad –

Neutral –

Stable –

Images – all free, and nice FP in lead infobox

Sources –

dates in refs are a mix of 2017-09-22 and 2 July 2010 formats, they need to be consistent

It looks like refs 33 and 34 are being pulled in by the the Template:Nutritionalvalue, which pulls the refs. So you may need to make the dates match the template ref date format, otherwise you need to change the template. Weird that refs are in templates.

refs 6 and 15 both use the same website, Royal Horticultural Society, but are formatted differently

ref 19, is there a page and isbn for this?

ref 2 and 21 are free-formatted and does not use the cite web format of the other web refs

the section “dried apricots” has no ref at all

some of your cite webs use |website= and others use |publisher=, I don’t understand the flipflopping, can you make them consistent?

ref 46, what makes Anglo-List reliable?

refs 47 and 48, these seem a bit borderline to me, while the superstition does seem to exist (silly as it is haha), there are better sources, such as this and this AND if you keep ref 48, it’s missing a publisher

ref 51 is missing a publisher too

ref authors are mostly last, first, but in 47 48 49 50, they are first last, this comes from using |author= instead of |last= and |first=, please make consistent

Copyvio – Earwig comes back clean

MisawaSakura (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]