Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cucurbita/archive1

Comments about the lede

1) Regarding this sentence:

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and traditionally of detergent.

This part: and traditionally of detergent does not sound right. It would partly improve it if you added commas around "traditionally":

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and, traditionally, detergent. (no "of" before detergent)

But that's a little inelegant. Another problem is that the word "traditionally" suggests that it is no longer an important source of detergent, and since the verb of the sentence, "is", is in present tense, detergent doesn't belong in the list. You might perhaps fix that problem by changing the verb to present perfect tense and adding a time period:

• For hundreds [or thousands] of years, the Cucurbita genus has been an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil and detergent. [Here I think you can leave out "traditionally" because the time span is large enough that you don't have to be so accurate about the present time.]

Another solution would be to leave the verb in present tense (or change it to present perfect) and leave out detergent. I think the word "traditionally" unnecessarily clutters up the sentence.

Since it's in the lead I cut it. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Regarding this sentence:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, which are used as utensils or vessels, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe.

I know you've worked on this sentence, but it is still not perfect. You have two adjective clauses in this sentence, both beginning with "which" (they must begin with "which" and not "that" because they are non-restrictive, or non-identifying, adjective clauses). I suggest the following wording to reduce the number of adjective clauses to one:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are used as utensils or vessels. They are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe.

Another possibility is the following wording:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels.

or:

• Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe; rather than providing food, they are used as utensils or vessels.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the third paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

• The flowers are yellow or orange, and there are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: the female flowers that produce the fruit and the male flowers that produce pollen.

I think the definite article "the" can be removed before "female flowers" and "male flowers". You're not talking about specific flowers; you're talking about types of flower:

• The flowers are yellow or orange, and there are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: female flowers that produce the fruit and male flowers that produce pollen.

but the sentence still does not sound right. The first half of the sentence is not closely related to the second half, and the first half is in a different sentence structure from the second half. I suggest the following wording:

• The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange and are of two types: female and male. The female flowers produce the fruit and the male flowers produce pollen.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you changed it. Did you mean to leave out the link at "tribe"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HalfGig I don't know if you saw this. CorinneSD (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS. Missed that one. Fixed now. Thanks! HalfGig talk 17:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) The last sentence in the lede is the following:

• Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated in festivals such as Halloween, pumpkin chucking, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries.

I was about to add "in" before "flower and vegetable shows" because "flower and vegetable shows" are not examples of festivals, when I realized that Halloween is not a festival, either. It is a traditional holiday, but not a festival. I don't know how you want to fix this. One possibility is to delete "in festivals such as":

• Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keen Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the section "Description":

1) I'd like to say something about these two sentences:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and are mesophytes, plants which require a more or less continuous water supply. The perennial species grow in tropical zones and are xerophytes, plants which tolerate dry conditions well.

I assume that if a Cucurbita species is not a mesophyte, it is a xerophyte, and vice versa. If I am correct, then the xerophytes are less common than mesophytes. Something needs to make clear the relationship between these two sentences. Before I suggest an alternate wording, I'd like to ask whether any xerophytes are climbing annual vines.

All Cucurbita can climb if they have a structure to attach to, such as a corn stalk. Otherwise they grow along the ground. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You'll see that I don't know much about plant biology. As I said before, the relationship between those two sentences is not clear. Now I know that xerophytes can be "climbing annual vines", but, clearly, because of the definitions you've provided, a plant can be a xerophyte or a mesophyte but not both. Are all "perennial species" xerophytes? And why don't you mention "annual species" anywhere? CorinneSD (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, they can't be both. I'm only talking Cucurbita here...not any other genus, which I know far less about....Xerophytes are perennials not annuals. You said both in your last post. So to answer one of those question, yes, in the genus Cucurbita, all perennials are xerophytes. I do mention annuals, the article says "Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and are mesophytes". Most Cucurbita will be annual and mesophytes. Only a few are perennial and xerophytes. Does this help at all? HalfGig talk 03:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. I missed "annual" in "climbing annual vines". I'm sorry. What would you say to adding the phrase "The lesson common" or "The less numerous" before "xerophytes":

• The less common/The less numerous perennial species grow in tropical zones and are xerophytes, plants which tolerate dry conditions well. CorinneSD (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) The next sentence following those two is:

• Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or along the ground.

There is something wrong with this sentence. The way it is worded now, the verb climb applies to both "adjacent plants and structures" and "along the ground":

• Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or [climb] along the ground.

The verb climb doesn't really work with horizontal movement along the ground. You could add the verb crawl, move, or extend:

• Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or crawl along the ground.

Do the tendrils actually help the plant crawl, move, or extend along the ground? If so, then you can use one of those verbs as in the version just above. The phrase "growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft)" doesn't really say height or width. I guess the reader is supposed to assume that it means that it grows 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft) in height. Whether or not you think that is clear enough without the phrase "in height", it seems odd to mention tendrils that help it crawl along the ground, which is horizontal movement. Just some things to think about.

I used crawl. I also added "in height or length", because that depends on if they grow up or out. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clearer now. I prefer "extend", though. It's more academic than "crawl". CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the section "Germination and seedling growth":

1) In the first paragraph, the second sentence is the following:

• Seed with maximum germination potential in C. moschata had developed by 45 days after anthesis, and seed weight reached its maximum 70 days after anthesis.

Coming right after a sentence in present perfect tense (has been directly linked), this sentence in past perfect tense (had developed) and past tense (reached) puzzles me. It sounds like it refers to a specific experiment or research result, but no indication of time or place is given. If you want to keep those verb tenses, you need to indicate to what experiment or research this refers. If you're referring to a generally accepted truth about the seeds, you need to use present tense. Also, I don't understand the use of the singular "seed" at the beginning of the sentence.

I tried to fix this. Think of the singular seed as collective, as in "a sack of bird seed", which is thousands of seeds, not just one. Does this help? Ok now? HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean by the singular seed as a collective noun, and I saw you changed "had developed" to "developed", but the sentence is still not clear to me for several reasons.

1) When and where did this happen? You can't just have a sentence in past tense sandwiched in between a sentence in present perfect tense and the subsequent sentences in present tense.

Asking Sminthopsis84 to handle these two. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) What does "Seed...developed" mean? CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Sminthopsis84 to handle these two. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) and 2) Although I'm a little uncomfortable with generalizing from one experiment, I think that is the wikipedia style, since there's no point in citing the experiment if it isn't taken as a general indication. I've changed these sentences to "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein. Seed with maximum germination potential in C. moschata develops by 45 days after anthesis, and seed weight reaches its maximum 70 days after anthesis." I hope that solves the problem that the subsequent text is in the present tense. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the second paragraph is the following sentence:

• Phytate forms in seeds tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids.

I don't understand the use of the plural "seeds" as an adjective before "tissues". Also, even though there is a link at "Phytate", for an average reader who doesn't already know what "phytate" is, there is potential for ambiguity at the beginning of the sentence. "Phytate forms" can be read as noun - verb or as adjective - noun (because "forms" can be a verb or a plural noun). It only becomes sorted out when one continues to read. (The plural "seeds" before "tissues" doesn't help.) I'm wondering whether some descriptive phrase could be added before "phytate" to give the reader an idea of what it is: "The...... phytate forms...." If you don't want to do that, then perhaps changing "seeds" to "seed" will be enough. CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the "seeds" to "seed". To me that helps. Work for you too? I added an explanation clause. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the change from "seeds" to "seed" helped improve the sentence. The additional phrase only helps a little. Let me ask you: in the next sentence it says, "The nutrients in globoids". What's the relationship between that sentence and the one we've been discussing? Do those nutrients include phytate, or are those nutrients phytates? (I always try to make the connection between a sentence and the sentence before it clear; sometimes all it takes is the use of the right word or phrase.) CorinneSD (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are related. Globoids contain phytate, hence phosphorus, which is essential for plant growth, as well as other nutrients. HalfGig talk 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. What would you say to adding, "including phytates" or "including this stored phosphorous" (between a pair of commas) after "The nutrients in globoids"?:

• The nutrients in globoids, including this stored phosphorous, are eventually used completely during seedling growth.

To tell you the truth, when I first read that sentence about phytates, it wasn't clear to me whether it was something beneficial or something harmful to the plant. If it is made clear that it is a nutrient, then I know it is something beneficial. CorinneSD (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HalfGig, I know you've done just what I suggested, but I have re-read these two sentences several times and I feel that they don't fit well together. The sentences are awkward and the relationship between the two sentences is still not completely clear. Here they are as they are now:

• Phytate, a type of stored phosphorus, forms in seed tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. The nutrients in globoids, including this stored phosphorus, are eventually used completely during seedling growth.

I'd like to suggest the following re-wording:

• A type of stored phosphorus called phytate forms in seed tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. Along with other nutrients, phytate is used completely during seedling growth.

With this wording, the second sentences develops naturally out of the first. I have left out "eventually". I think "during seedling growth" is sufficient to indicate when phytate is used. I also left out "in globoids" after "nutrients". If you think it is important, you can add it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. HalfGig talk 23:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Comments about the section "Species"

I noticed that in the list of species in the third paragraph of the section, the countries of origin are given after the word "origin" followed by a hyphen. Is that standard format in botany? I haven't often seen a hyphen used that way. I would have thought either a colon after "origin" or a spaced en-dash would look better.

I made them ndashes. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the section "Habitat and distribution"

1) I paused at these two sentences:

• Within C. pepo, the pumpkins, scallops, and possibly crooknecks are ancient and were domesticated separately. The domesticated forms of C. pepo have larger fruits and larger yet fewer seeds.

(a) Regarding the first sentence, in the phrase "were domesticated separately", it is not clear what "separately" refers to. Separately from what?

Different times and places. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that to the sentence, which hopefully clarifies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) It is not clear whether "the domesticated forms of C. pepo" at the beginning of the second sentence are the same as "the pumpkins, scallops, and possibly crooknecks" that "were domesticated separately" (first sentence), or different.

It does if they are domesticated. I've added "than non-domesticated forms" to the end. We can tweak that even more if needed. Pumpkins, scallops, and crooknecks are only 3 of the 12 or so types of C. pepo. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(c) In the second sentence we read: "have larger fruits and larger yet fewer seeds". Larger than what? It's not clear.

See prior response. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(d) Regarding that same phrase, it would be a stylistic improvement to avoid the use of "larger" twice in such close proximity. One solution would be just to change one of them to "bigger". Another suggestion is to change "and larger yet fewer seeds" to an adjective clause describing the fruits:

• have bigger fruits whose seeds are larger yet fewer in number", or

• have larger fruits whose seeds are bigger yet fewer in number" (better).

Chose this one. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) At the end of the third paragraph are the following two sentences:

• It is found from sea level to as high as 1,800 meters (5,900 ft) in dry areas or areas with a defined rainy season. Seeds are sown in May and June at the start of the rainy season.

The second sentence says that seeds are sown...at the start of the rainy season, but you just mentioned that Cucurbita argyrosperma is found in dry areas as well as in areas with a defined rainy season. In those dry areas, is there a rainy season? If not, then when are seeds sown in those areas? CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unknown to me. Can you help wordsmith this? HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded that to clarify it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done

I hope my comments will not be seen as nitpicking. If you read my comments and suggested re-wordings carefully, I think you'll see that my goal is to increase clarity and improve sentence flow. (Read all the way through before you make any changes.) First, I'm going to copy the entire first paragraph of the article here:

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world. The plants, referred to as squash pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels.

1) Unless this is standard language among botanists, in which case I guess it should stay, I am not pleased with the sound of the first sentence:

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica.

The reason is that, normally, we say "X is native to [place]", but "X was first cultivated in [place]". Ideally, I'd like to add "that is" before "native to":

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae that is native to...

but even if it's not added, it is understood, so the "is" applies to both "native to" and "first cultivated in", and "[is] first cultivated in" does not make sense.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Also, the way it is worded now, there is some ambiguity in the "native to and first cultivated in". It could refer to Cucurbita or "the gourd family Cucurbitaceae". The way to clear up the ambiguity is to separate "native to..." from "the gourd family Cucurbitaceae". One possibility is:

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae. It is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica.

Another possibility is a small re-arrangement:

• A genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae, Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica.

This puts Cucurbitaceae far from, and Cucurbita closer to, "is native to...". For clarity, this is actually the best wording, but I don't know if there is some requirement that the subject of the article be the first word in the article.

I like that last wording too, but also don't know if it has to be the first word. HalfGig talk 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the phrase "referred to as squash pumpkin or gourd depending on species", shouldn't there be a comma after "squash"? You don't mean that "squash pumpkin" is a phrase unto itself, do you?

Fixed. HalfGig talk 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lede are the following two sentences:

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these species can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; C. pepo includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

Even though I may have worked on these sentences earlier, upon re-reading I see that the beginning of the second sentence needs some work:

(a) I think that, in the phrase "All of these species", the word "species" can be omitted:

• All of these can be treated as...."

(b) You might consider adding "however," after the semi-colon or after C. pepo.

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; however, C. pepo includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

or:

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; C. pepo, however, includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

Fixed. HalfGig talk 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) At the beginning of the third paragraph in the lede is the following sentence:

• Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have tendrils, but non-vining "bush" cultivars of C. pepo and C. maxima have been developed.

I would add the word "also" after "have":

• Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have tendrils, but non-vining "bush" cultivars of C. pepo and C. maxima have also been developed.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) The next sentence is:

• The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange and are of two types: female and male.

I probably wrote this sentence, too, but upon re-reading it I thought of something. The sequence "are yellow or orange and are of" is all right but is a little awkward-sounding. It also puts equal emphasis on the color and the fact that they are of two types. I'm wondering if it is necessary to say "The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange." I'm wondering what you think of this:

• The yellow or orange flowers on a Cucurbita plant are of two types: female and male.

This tells the reader that the flowers are either yellow or orange but puts less emphasis on the colors and focuses on the types (and the next sentence after this continues discussion of the types, so that focus is appropriate). What do you think? That's all for now. Will continue reading. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the section Cucurbita#History and domestication:

1) The second sentence in the section Cucurbita#History and domestication is:

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south into what is now known as Mesoamerica and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

According to the first sentence in the article on Mesoamerica, the region called "Mesoamerica" extends southward from the middle of Mexico. Since "southern Mexico" is in Mesoamerica, the phrase "spreading south into...Mesoamerica" isn't quite accurate. (If it's in Mesoamerica, it can't spread into Mesoamerica.)

Perhaps a small word change would avoid that inaccuracy but express pretty much the same thing:

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

Since it says at the beginning of the article that Cucurbita is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica, I don't see why you don't add "into South America" after "spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica":

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica, into South America, and north to what is now the southwestern United States. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. HalfGig talk 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Toward the end of the last paragraph in Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution is the following sentence (read to the end before you make any changes):

• In 1986 Paris proposed a revised taxonomy of the edible cultivated C. pepo with eight groups based on their basic shape and color, which varies widely.

I suppose, just judging from the verb "varies", the adjective clause "which varies widely" refers just to color, but it might also refer to "basic shape". If it refers to both "basic shape" and "color", the verb needs to be changed to "vary". If it refers only to color, I would add "and on their" before "color" to make it clear that the clause refers only to color. I'd also like to suggest that you change "with" to "that consists of" or "that includes":

• In 1986 Paris proposed a revised taxonomy of the edible cultivated C. pepo that consists of eight groups based on their basic shape and on their color, which varies widely.

I actually think it would be better to leave it "their basic shape and color" but leave off the adjective clause, "which varies widely". You could say somewhere else that their color varies widely. The important thing here is that the revised taxonomy is based on their basic shape and color. If it is important to mention their colors, you could write,

• ...based on their basic shape and their widely varying colors.

or:

• ...based on their basic shape and varied colors. CorinneSD (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to harp on this, and I know you selected one of the two alternatives I suggested, but upon re-reading, I have to ask you: was Paris' new taxonomy really based on all the different colors? Basic shape I can understand. But I believe I read somewhere that the colors vary widely even within one species, so creating a taxonomy based on all these colors doesn't seem to make much sense. You can ask Sminthopsis84 about this, but I would keep this simple: "based on their basic shape and [varied] colors". I really don't know to what extent the taxonomy is based on the colors, but the more elaborate wording you chose suggests that one principle upon which the taxonomy was based was the many colors -- a bit confusing. CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Paris article again, I think it would be accurate to drop the mention of color from the classification, saying something like "based primarily on the shape of the fruit". The flesh of the fruit and whether the rind is hard are also important for deciding where a cultivar belongs in that classification, and color plays some part (e.g., vegetable marrows are not yellow or striped), but fruit shape alone could be used to accurately place each cultivar into that classification. I'll make that change; see what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) Regarding the table in this section, I just don't understand the photo of the pumpkin. I have never seen a red pumpkin. All my life I have seen pumpkins, and they are all orange -- not even reddish-orange -- just orange. I know there have been discussions regarding this earlier, but even if pumpkins are red in some other part of the world, they are native to Mesoamerica and soon moved into North America, so are kind of native to North America, which is where I am, so I think the picture of the pumpkin should show an orange pumpkin. Also, most of them are rounder, not as narrow as the one in the table. CorinneSD (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a red pumpkin anywhere. HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only image of a pumpkin in the table. It's reddish-orange. CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several pumpkins that color. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the photo. HalfGig talk 02:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You don't have to change the photo. It's just that the pumpkins I'm used to look like the ones in the article on Pumpkin, the first image in the section Pumpkin#Description. The caption says, "Several large pumpkins". Do you see the difference in color? CorinneSD (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Cucurbita#Toxins:

1) In the middle of the third paragraph is the following sentence: [Note: read to the "Update" below before making any changes.]

• Cucurbitacin is a plant steroid poisonous to mammals found in wild Cucurbita in quantities sufficient to discourage herbivores, and in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family. It has a bitter taste, and is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, with the exception of an occasional C. fraterna and C. sororia, bitter to taste.

There are some things about these two sentences that are not clear to me.

(a) The phrase "poisonous to mammals found in wild Cucurbita" sounds like some mammals are found in the wild squashes.

(b) I think you could mention at the same time that Cucurbitacin is both bitter and poisonous.

(c) If Cucurbitacin is found in wild Cucurbita and "in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family", where is it not found? In cultivated Cucurbita? But I thought even cultivated Cucurbita are within the Cucurbitaceae family. I'm totally confused by this.

(d) Regarding the second sentence, I assume that "It" means "Cucurbitacin", but this pronoun is so far from its antecedent, with several singular nouns in between, that it would be a good idea to replace the pronoun with the noun.

(e) I think there is a bit of unnecessary repetition here. You're saying:

Cucurbitacin has a bitter taste and is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds...bitter to taste.

Why would any thing or anyone ever taste Cucurbitacin by itself? Is the first part of this sentence necessary? Why not just say:

Cucurbitacin is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, ..., bitter to taste.

If you want to explain things, I'll be glad to revise the sentences to whatever extent you wish, or you can go ahead and work on the sentences yourself; either way is fine. Or, of course, if you think they're fine as they are, you can leave them as they are. CorinneSD (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I think I've figured out a wording that would address most of the issues I raised. I haven't changed anything in the article, but I'll put this version here so you can look and think about it. If you decide to use it, you'll have to figure out where the references go.

• Cucurbitacin is a plant steroid present in wild Cucurbita and in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family. Poisonous to mammals, it is found in quantities sufficient to discourage herbivores. It makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, with the exception of an occasional C. fraterna and C. sororia, bitter to taste.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Cucurbita#Production:

1) Regarding the table, is there any way to get the heading, "Top ten squash producers — 2012", all on one line? If the table itself has to be made wider in order to do that, perhaps the "Country" column could be made wider.

No idea. We'd need a table expert for that. HalfGig talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) The first sentence after the table is the following:

• The only other countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native are Cuba, which ranks 14th with 347,082 metric tons, and Argentina, which ranks 17th, with 326,900 metric tons.

I don't understand the first part of this sentence. I don't understand "The only other countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native". Perhaps it should be "The only other countries where squashes are native that rank in the top 20". But even with that, I don't understand "The only other". The countries that were mentioned before the table are not all countries where squashes are native. Well that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cut "other". HalfGig talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done