Talk:Bidni

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bidni. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161012043401/https://www.mepa.org.mt/bidnija to https://www.mepa.org.mt/bidnija
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://https

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bidni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments

There are some points that need working on:

• Use of bold type for "Bitni" and "Bidni" in the main text: fine in the first line of the lead but you need to lose the bolding throughout the rest of the article. (Manual of Style).
• "oil which is thought to be low in acidity" – thought to be? Hasn't it been checked scientifically?
• "This dispels several online sources" – dispels? Contradicts, possibly.
• Block quote: we do not use quotation marks to introduce and conclude block quotes (MOS:BQ).
• "Olive Oil Times" – needs italicising.
• "Malta's ancient Bidni olive trees, which have been confirmed through carbon dating" – it is not the trees but their antiquity that has been confirmed.
• "still bear fruit, however their olives" – stronger stop than a comma needed.
• "this statistic comes as no surprise" – you should remove the WP:EDITORIAL
• "predominant, testimony" – stronger stop than a comma needed.
• "eat these ... serve these" – "them" would be clearer than "these" here
• "On a different note" – more editorialising.

I'll put the review on hold to give you time to deal with these points. Tim riley talk 09:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Following the nominator's recent changes I think the article now meets the GA criteria, so ...

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I found this a pleasing, and indeed instructive, article to review. It gives me great pleasure to promote it to GA status. - Tim riley talk 16:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Bidni

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: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The references are mangled with multiple errors, missing authors and publication dates, and self-published sources. Multiple uncited claims. The prose itself is somewhat flawed. Kimikel (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you identify the uncited claims? Also seeing maybe 2 self-published sources. The reference errors are mainly easily fixable template mistakes Aza24 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• and as having an "Antiquarian Importance",[7] a status which is enjoyed by only a handful of other species. > no citation
• Other Bidni olive trees in the vicinity can be found in the private grounds of Qannotta Castle in Wardija.
• Nowadays, the use of oil in Maltese cuisine is still predominant. The popular Maltese snack "ħobż biż-żejt", which literally translates to "bread with oil", is testimony to this.

Looking back, the lead section additionally doesn't summarize the body at all, and instead introduces information not mentioned anywhere else. It would need to be rewritten, with that information being moved to the body. Kimikel (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you couldn't manage yourself, surely, Kimikel? That's the sensible way forward, I think. Tim riley talk 15:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: It is not a reviewer's responsibility or requirement to make edits to an article. Instead, those who want the article to retain its GA status should be the ones to make the necessary improvements. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine, if you can't be bothered. No obligation, but it might have been a kindness. Tim riley talk 20:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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.