Talk:Apple

"Apples grown from seed tend to be very different from those of their parents"

Nonsense. All you can say is that they CAN be different. Terrible article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.123.60 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your view, but you are simply wrong on this point. As the article explains, apples are extremely heterozygous, so seeds have a vanishingly small chance of producing the same variety of fruit as their parents. This is the reason why growers go to the trouble of grafting every new tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it does not meet the GA criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• An image gallery is generally frowned upon, per WP:GALLERY, and the multiple images in "Cultivars" should be trimmed down.
• There are many undeveloped sections, including "Phytochemicals", "Other products", "Research", "Nutrition", "Production", and "Distribution and habitat". This makes me believe that the article is not complete.
• There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the Production and Nutrition sections, there is nothing more to say from the sources provided, which are the most authoritative available (UN and USDA, respectively).

For the Phytochemicals and Research sections, there are numerous primary research publications and some low-quality reviews, but it's evident from the discussions in these papers that the content is misleading with exaggerations of health benefits, such as "important antioxidant properties" and "promising therapeutic agents against human diseases", and "apple products have protective effects against cardiovascular diseases, cancer, etc.. There is no good scientific evidence in the clinical research literature, and therefore no WP:MEDRS sources that support such claims. Zefr (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Very much agree that the article looks nothing like the last time(s) it went through any GA review, and another is now due. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed a couple of unacceptable medical-related claims. I agree the article needs re-reviewing. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Improved apple diagram

I had a look on the German Wikipedia and there is an good illustration there of the structure of an apple.

Auf Deutsch

I think this image is a potential replacement for the current diagram if relabeled in English. If someone else more expert in image edition does it that would be great, but I can use GIMP and will. Though I would like to discuss I will get to this (eventually), but before I do I'd like feedback on the best labels.

1. Stem/pedicel
2. Cavity
3. Skin
4. Vascular bundle line
5. Seed cavity
6. Apple core
7. Seed
8. Core axis
9. Pistil pit
10. Remnant stamens, styles, and sepals
11. Calyx pit

Is there anyone with more expertise than me? I'm going off other internet labels and my middling knowledge of German. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Auf Englisch

Well, here's the new diagram. It's certainly an improvement, but the labels seem to me to be "inside out", all from the point of view of the highly derived apple structure, with only "pedicel", "seed", "pistil", "remnant stamens..." as indirect clues to what I'd expect to see, viz. "seed", "carpel", "endocarp", "mesocarp", "exocarp", and probably a few structures outside that, i.e. standard botany. It might be better to compare the thing with a pea pod or some more recognisably "standard" fruit so as to show what the structures are botanically, no? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. I agree that it should be more botanically explanatory. I always hesitate with botanical terms because I'm self taught and I worry that I'll make a mistake in usage since I still have gaps and oversights in my understanding of things like "carpel" (or think that I do). I think that a version with comparison to a pea would be even better on pome since we could get into the detail in the text explaining why botanists make the distinction between pomes as accessory fruits and other fruits like drupes or berries in the botanical sense. Also, I just noticed a gap. Wikipedia does not have a diagram on legume showing the botanical parts. I've not looked at all other major languages, but I've not found any illustrations to translate so far. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Apple vs peapod anatomy

Right, here's Pome vs Peapod which I've placed at Pome, I think that explains a great deal more and may even give some folks an Aha! moment. Let's hope so.

Apple anatomy, flower and fruit compared

Finally, I hope, here is an image for this article, showing how the apple fruit derives from flower structures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You do great work! That's very informative and beautiful. I think I would not have been able to get the lines pointing to the parts removed and replaced so well. While it will never be finished, I am really happy with how the article has come together. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! (Trade secret: I found the original apple image which had no lines across it.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Table of synonyms

I returned to my table of synonyms idea. I put all the synonyms from POWO into a sortable table. It is simultaneously great and yet way too much. For one thing POWO has 318 synonyms listed. I think maybe it would be more useful if I cut it down to just the species and homotypic synonyms, but even at that I have my doubts. I love being able to see the order in which all these synonyms were published and I've learned some fascinating things including that "monstrosity" used to be a rank. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The table should be a standalone list article, cited to all of its 318 authorities, and linked from here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not occur to me to make it a stand alone article, thanks for the idea. Though, I would want to be sure that it would be worthy of an article. Possibly writing some prose about the taxonomy of the apple if I can find good sources. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)