Back

Talk:Banana

Former good articleBanana was one of the 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 9, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Broc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Will review. Broc (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I'm starting the review with general comments as I find them. I will write in italics improvements that are not strictly needed for a GA.

Prose[edit]

  • 'Dwarf Cavendish' and 'Gros Michel' should have wikilinks
    • Added.

Sources[edit]

  • Sources 5 and 6 fail verification (tag added). Verrill (at least in the version accessible online [1]) does not specify a number and only brings anecdotal descriptions one may actually see it grow, while Flindt mentions 1.6 m/day (height, not surface).
    • Fixed.
  • Sources 5, 6, 18 could use a link to the archive.org version, as well as an ISBN, if available.
    • [5] removed. [6] is a copyrighted book, not sure that can be archived. Same for [18], if I know which ref you mean ... best give author's name as fixes may change ref numbers.
  • Source 7 does not specify the height of "Dwarf Cavendish" bananas.
    • Added a ref.
  • Source 13 and 17 are dead links, and the archived version is not accessible. Can they be replaced with another source? Broc (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13 replaced. Not sure which ref you mean by '17'.
      • It is now [18], "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families". Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Broc (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • It worked fine but required user to enter 'Musa'. Have replaced URL with specific result URN to avoid searching.
  • Researchers Norman Simmonds and Ken Shepherd proposed a genome-based nomenclature system in 1955. [...] leading to confusion. Source 24 does not seem to be WP:RS (self-hosted material), and source 25 does not support the statement. Perhaps a link to the original manuscript would be better.
    • Added.

Side issues[edit]

Early translocation out of ISEA[edit]

I question This may indicate very early dispersal of bananas by Austronesian traders by sea from as early as 2000 BCE, or they may have come from local wild Musa species used for fiber or as ornamentals, not food. The assignment of this movement to Austronesian traders is unsupported by the source given (Fuller et al, 2015). Whilst the paper discusses, in broad terms, the maritime capability of Austronesian speakers, there is no suggestion that they were involved in this particular translocation. The cited sources says:
"However, banana phytoliths from the Harappan site of Kot Diji in southern Pakistan (Fuller & Madella 2009) could indicate a westward diffusion of bananas by sea from Island Southeast Asia to the Indus as early as 2000 BC (Figure 2)."
So the paper is saying that there is suggestive evidence of translocation of the banana at that date, but not who performed it.

When we consider another paper( Denham, Tim. “Early Agriculture and Plant Domestication in New Guinea and Island Southeast Asia.” Current Anthropology 52, no. S4 (2011): S379–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/658682.) saying:
"Multidisciplinary evidence suggests the dispersal of bananas westward from New Guinea occurred within a pre-Austronesian time frame (Denham and Donohue 2009; Donohue and Denham 2009, 2010)"
I think we can see why this article needs to exercise some general caution in confidently assigning any movement to Austronesian speakers. Furthermore, a 2000 BC movement by Austronesians seems to be contradicted by [2], which shows that, at this time, Austronesians were steadily spreading across ISEA, with their first long distance sea journey being to the Mariana Islands in 1500 BC. (Yes, Wikipedia is not an RS, but this map is a useful illustration of the chronology, even though it has errors.)

Similarly, some cautious reconsideration may be due on the article's From Island Southeast Asia, bananas became part of the staple domesticated crops of Austronesian peoples and were spread during their voyages and ancient maritime trading routes into Oceania, East Africa, South Asia, and Indochina.

It is quite complex assessing exactly what the literature says on all this – perhaps more so because of the guarded language used by many authors. Therefore this is an early flag of this issue, with more reading to do. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 09:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the "more reading to do", the obvious comment is that the task of a Good Article is to cover "the main points", which might be summarized as 1) the banana is a favourite fruit, eaten in large quantities; 2) it's widely traded; 3) it's a product of domestication; 4) modern bananas are seedless clones, which 5) therefore face numerous problems. The article says all this already. The other criteria cover neutrality, clarity, citations and so on. I don't find "precise details of prehistorical spread" among the GA criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "more reading" comment was directed at me, not anyone else. Sorry, should have made that clear. The role of the banana in one of the few centres of the development of farming would have been on my "blank sheet of paper" planning for such an article – obviously just my thinking, with only the example of the GA on Wheat to suggest that is not an isolated view. But that's enough from me on this. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual genetics[edit]

I find it surprising that the unusual genetic feature of the banana, that chloroplast DNA is inherited maternally, whilst mitochondrial DNA is paternal, is not mentioned in the article. It seems this makes study of the various species and subspecies easier than with other inheritance systems. This helps give a good understanding of their domestication. See Donohue, Mark, and Tim Denham. “Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian History.” Current Anthropology 51, no. 2 (2010): 223–56. https://doi.org/10.1086/650991. for mention of this (at page 226). JSTOR link is at [3]. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part played in the independent invention of farming[edit]

I wonder whether the article should mention that the banana was one of the key crops in the independent invention of farming in Papua New Guinea. I only have a research paper as a source for this (so, primary source) but there should be better ones available. Denham, T. P., S. G. Haberle, C. Lentfer, R. Fullagar, J. Field, M. Therin, N. Porch, and B. Winsborough. “Origins of Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea.” Science 301, no. 5630 (2003): 189–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3834782. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've done that, but we are in some danger of wandering around fixing regional mentions and minor points (this is now the third one, and the GAN has barely got started), rather than getting on with checking and fixing any issues around the 6 GA criteria, which is the purpose here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chiswick Chap here, let's keep the review focused on GA criteria. Broc (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert in GA and FA processes, so apologise if I am out of order here, but it seems that the involvement of the banana in the independent development of agriculture in one of the handful of places that this happened is one of the basic facts about this plant. So that would be 3(a) of the GA criteria. Compare this with wheat, where there is a separate subsection on Domestication and a prominent mention of the first cultivation in the second sentence of the lead of that article. As far as article content goes, I would have gone for something like:
I would have liked to link to an article on early farming that actually does the PNG origin of farming some justice, but have not found anything that really does that. The last table in Vavilov center seems to be the best overview of the places and crops involved, hence the link – but this suggestion still feels unsatisfactory to me. Not a problem if you feel I have gone off mission here, in which case, please ignore. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 09:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief mention and the citation; if the reviewer wants more, that's up to them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar Malagasy settlement date[edit]

I question the date in It is likely that bananas were brought at least to Madagascar if not to the East African coast during the phase of Malagasy colonization of the island from South East Asia c. 400 CE.[41]. I do not have access to the source (Madagascar: A Short History), but if it does state c. 400 CE as the date of Malagasy settlement, then that is commonly disagreed with by widely cited authors such as Alexander Adelaar. The accepted dates are in the latter half of the first century AD, with a range of 6th to 9th centuries. The date of Malagasy settlement is key to the narrative in the article. I would have edited c. 400 CE if I knew how the cited source dealt with this. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search