Talk:SweeTango

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSweeTango was one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 23, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
August 12, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
October 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
March 3, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the SweeTango is a new variety of apple, not a romantic dance?
Current status: Delisted good article

Older entries[edit]

Removed Delete notice. Showed several reasons for its notability under Trademark and Patent section pertaining to SweeTango's Patent - with references. One reason for its notability is that it is superior to the state fruit of Minnesota, the Honeycrisp apple (its "mother"). Its "father" is the Zestar Apple. Association of University Technology Managers named the Zestar apple one of the top 25 innovations that changed the world. See also new Notability section with numerous references.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected this information - the cited article says "Honeycrisp" was one of the top 25 innovations, not "Zestar."96.35.174.133 (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to follow WP:RS when adding citations. See also: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#examiner.com ShepTalk 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is this article worded too much like an advertisement? I'm not challenging the notability of the subject itself, I just get the feeling from skimming through it that it goes into much more detail about things like the patent than would be considered encyclopedic for any similar articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.61.77 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously an advertisement, why has this not been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.71.140 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've got to agree with the above, this article isn't 'good', needs more work. Leo Breman (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Notability" section from the article[edit]

I'm removing the section called "Notability" from the article. I'm posting it here, as its citations may have information that could be used to improve the article, and the citations could establish notability if the article is nominated for deletion again (it was apparently nominated in the past). The style of writing and much of the content is decidedly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, references to the University of Minnesota's and Pepin Heights' websites explaining their positions on ethical criticism about them are not neutral, reliable sources. Following is the current content of the Notability section that I'm removing:

WCCO Broadcasting explains that the SweeTango is a good eating apple as well as a good cooking apple and goes on to say
Wall Street Journal says that New York farmers are looking for the next big "Moneycrisp", previously the Honeycrisp, and believe the SweeTango is it for the future.[2]
USA Today writes that Minnesota apple growers believe that SweeTango is a possible worthy successor to the popular and highly successful Honeycrisp apple variety.[3]
Associated Press reports on the Hot New Apple: SweeTango, Spicy and Sweet and gives an extensive review.[4]
StarTribune newspaper reports that the AppleHouse opens at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum featuring the new SweeTango .[5]
The News Tribune newspaper writes a report that the Licensing deal for hot new apple comes under fire for University of Minnesota's exclusive rights to the intellectual property of the SweeTango growing exclusive licensing deals.[6] Others have explained the concept behind this.[7][8][9]
Post-Bulletin newspaper reports that Pepin Heights Orchard believes that they have the next "dynamite" apple with the SweeTango.[10]
University of Minnesota reports that this new brand of apple is a "managed variety", meaning to maintain high quality standards.[11]
Foodgreekery believes that SweeTango is Honeycrisp's nightmare.[12]
A fruit grower comments on the SweeTango in confidence of its future
A recipe for SweeTango apple cobbler can be found online.[14] Numerous reviews of the SweeTango apple can be found online.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

References[edit]

  1. ^ U Of M Develops Sweet New Apple: 'SweeTango'[dead link]
  2. ^ Grayce, Melanie (August 4, 2010). "Wall Street Journal – The New Apples of Farmers' Eyes". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  3. ^ "Can new SweeTango match Honeycrisp as top apple seller?". USA Today. September 3, 2009. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  4. ^ STEVE SZKOTAK (September 19, 2010). "Hot New Apple: SweeTango, Spicy and Sweet". Edgedallas.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  5. ^ "The dirt: AppleHouse opens at the arb". Startribune.com. August 31, 2010. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  6. ^ Licensing deal for hot new apple comes under fire [dead link]
  7. ^ "Brief statement on SweeTango lawsuit". Pepinheights.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  8. ^ "Pepin Heights SweeTango Lawsuit Q&A". Pepinheights.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  9. ^ Star Tribune article by Mary Lynn Smith, Growers sue the University of Minnesota over an exclusive deal with Pepin Heights Orchard to grow the SweeTango.[dead link]
  10. ^ "Area growers want a bite of the SweeTango apple". Postbulletin.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  11. ^ "SweeTango Description". University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. November 6, 2009. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
  12. ^ "SweeTango – Honeycrisp's nightmare". Foodgeekery.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  13. ^ Brian Sparks. "American/Western Fruit Growers". Growingproduce.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  14. ^ by admin (November 6, 2010). "Baked SweeTango Apple Cobbler". Eatlikenoone.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  15. ^ by admin. "What is a SweeTango Apple Like?". Eatlikenoone.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  16. ^ by admin. "Honeycrisp vs. SweeTango: Which is Better?". Eatlikenoone.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  17. ^ The Review By Steve Karnowski[dead link]
  18. ^ "A new apple, the SweeTango, at center of controversy". Twincities.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  19. ^ "Honeycrisp apple successor: SweeTango". Fatwallet.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  20. ^ Lee Lupo. "New SweeTango apple available in Hart". The Muskegon Chronicle. Mlive.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  21. ^ "The Next Big Thing: SweeTango Apples Now Available". Moreplease.centralmarket.com. September 27, 2009. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  22. ^ "The SweeTango Apple Makes Its Northern Michigan Debut". Mynorth.com. Retrieved January 18, 2012.
  23. ^ "The Building of an Apple Brand: The SweeTango". Heavytable.com. October 14, 2009. Retrieved January 18, 2012.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SweeTango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

SweeTango[edit]

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Doug Caldwell CCI investigation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, I was browsing the article the other day from (yes) my hair app't with my iPad, and found copyvio. But didn't write it down because, wet hair :) I can go back and search again if need be, but everything needs to be re-checked. If you can't find it, I'll look again. The article is worthy of a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see also my comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the normal issues, the single quotes around the types of apples is a big MOS problem --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I dunno about "big", but yeah, they shouldn't be there. I'll have a good look later - there's a link flagged up by earwig, but it must be a newly added item to Earwig as I didn't see it when I did the review, nor when I said I'd open a GAR. I think it'd be easy enough to fix as it can be reworded easy enough I think. I've been a little bit quiet the last month or so with some off-wiki work, so I'll give this my full attention when I get half hour. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I won't be able to revisit probably for a few days, but will re-locate the issue as soon as I have a free block of time to dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First copyvio fixed (every source needs to be reviewed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First example of source-to-text integrity (entire article needs checking). DC was quite fond of "firsts":

  • ... was released in 2006 and officially available to the public in 2007. The apple first sold in eastern United States in 2009.

Source doesn't support "first", and says "will be" sold in the fall ... how do we know it was ? And that's an old source; when did it become available actually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First example of failed verification (extending a general statement made in the source to the Sweetango):

  • The apple variety 'Minneiska' was intentionally bred and selected for its combination of 20 fruit characteristic traits.

Entire article needs to be checked for same, which is characteristic of problems found in other articles.

These are samples only. My suggestion is to delist, patch up the article, and re-submit to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's fine. I don't think it's super eggregious, if you changed to not comment about it being sold first in the US and the second piece is more puff than anything. I don't think it is too difficult to fix up, but I'm not in the position to make the necessary changes (maybe another time). It's a bit of a shame, as the copyvio issues are much less obvious than other articles in the list. When I get 20 free I'll see if I can fix the puff, but we do need to chop up some of the actual copyright violations (or close paraphrasing at least). I'll desist for now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (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.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: at least four different sources were copy-pasted, see edit summaries. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SweeTango&oldid=1209137342"