Talk:Agriculture/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon, but I might take a while. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC) I took a quick read now, and think that the article already meets the basic GA criteria, or at least is very close. However, given the extreme importance of this article, I would like to offer a more throughout review, in the hopes that you want to take the effort and nominate it for FA at some point in the future.[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on, and for the kind appraisal. I have no plans for FA at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

Most of my concerns are about the history section, which I found relatively weak. Comments below:

The Incas domesticated the potato some 7,000–10,000 years ago. – This can't be. The Incas were the rulers of the Inca Empire, which lasted from 1438-1533 CE; it was only the last of a plethora of cultures that developed agriculture in the Andes before them.

a follow-up on that: the same information can already been found in the previous paragraph, "Origins". Maybe the article structure is not optimal here.

Removed, for both reasons. The Origins and Civilizations perspectives are both valid (what/when, by whom) and there's actually very little overlap between them.

The whole "History" section reads too much like a fact collection, not a summary explaining the basic patterns. I'm still thinking about suggestions how to improve.

On this, I'd observe that the History section is explicitly a summary of the History of agriculture article, and was constructed by condensing its text, preserving refs and leaving a 'main' link. Therefore, it appears in "summary style" and inevitably is somewhat condensed (the History is itself a long article). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I would have expected that general points and context are summarized instead of this level of detail. But this might be partly a matter of taste, and nothing to critizise for a GA, so I'm fine to leave it as is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrigation was developed in the Indus Valley Civilization by around 4,500 BC. – according to the linked Wikipedia article, the Indus Valley Civilization was not before 3300 BC. And according to this article (and others cited therein, [1]), the Indus Valley Civilization did not rely on irrigation at all.

Removed, the PNAS source is better than the one cited.

Some facts presented in the history section seem a bit arbitrary to me. For example, why is the strawberry discussed, but, e.g., not the tomato?

Well as Voltaire said, we can't say everything, and the strawberry's history is counterintuitive. Added tomato to the Columbian exchange.

Sure, but see answer to second comment. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the history section is weak in discussing the influence agriculture had on world history. You could, for example, mention that 1) agriculture was the driving factor in early colonialism (e.g., spice islands); 2) the colonies were often focused on a single agricultural product (monoculture on a countries scale), which is one important reason for current problems in the third world; 3) Slavery (Africans were brought to the Americas mainly to work in agriculture); 4) Famines, their causes and consequences; 5) discussion on land property, including feudalism and socialist collectivization (in Russia and China, the revolution was one of agriculture, not of the non-existing proletariat), and 6) social status and wealth of the farmers.

Interesting; working on it. Have mentioned effects on population, including leading in with that: demonstrably a major effect. Some of the other items are political matters not caused by agriculture as such; most apply mainly after the Columbian exchange (the most recent 5% of agriculture's history). I'm not convinced by all the causal connections, either; for instance, the spice island venture seems to have been driven initially by profit, and initially involved sailing fleets rather than agriculture. Not sure how to proceed here.

Understood that a strong focus on agriculture itself might be better than a broad discussion on world history, since agriculture had influenced almost everything. Regarding the spice island venture, you are right, but I think the founding of colonies on those islands (their annexion from the natives) was solely driven by the wish to set up agricultural monocultures. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact

You are restricting the discussion on the environmental impact of manure to aquatic environments, but I think it has a significant impact on biodiversity on land as well, most severe of course on the agricultural meadows and crop fields themselves, but also as it affects groundwater (which, in turn, affects human health).

Added.

Maybe mention that intensively used agricultural areas show the lowest biodiversity of habitats (including cities).

Done.

In the pesticides section, I miss the impact of pesticides on nature (most importantly on insects, which already collapsed in many regions together with the members of the food chain connected with them).

Added insecticides.

Compared to other sections, the "Energy dependence" seems a bit wordy (and partly repetitive), and may be more concise.

Trimmed.

Other

more to come later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.

Closing note: Sorry for the delay, real life got me. I just had another look, and nothing more substantial came up. Thanks for all additions. I added some answers to the above issues, but all in all, this is a very decent GA, I will pass now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]