Jump to content

Talk:Sichuan pepper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aza24 (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 2 July 2024 (archived – see Talk:Sichuan pepper/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revised page

Based on talk page topics and missing citations on the page itself, I've significantly revised the Sichuan pepper page. I focused on streamlining and corroborating text using citations from Chinese researchers and cooks (+ other Asian regions as appropriate), but as I'm neither an accomplished cook nor someone who grew up around Sichuan cuisine it would be ideal to have a more expert review of the page. Mozby (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing job on the citations. I also really enjoyed your oped. HAlcibiades979 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded -- incredible to read about your energy and the philosophy behind your editing. Inspiring! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the constant effort of all us us who see things here and say, “hey, I could do better than that” that produces the continuous improvement that makes Wikipedia such a valuable resource. I also clicked through from your NY Times piece which was really compelling. Thanks! Ray Trygstad (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your article. I am an amateur compared to you, and have stuck to article of which I have firsthand knowledge, but I also cherish the feeling of setting the record straight. Mfrphoto (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed it too.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened

After reading the NYT op-ed, I was rather disappointed with article's current state. Curiosity struck, and I seem to have been mislead. The original article from Mozby's rewrite in 2020 (see diff) is much better than the current one.

I'm not sure how/why this article has deteriorated, but the fundamental structure has been altered to misplace citations everywhere. For example, see my recent change, where a citation has been moved far from its target sentence. Practically all mention of Korean and Indonesian uses have been removed.

Admittedly, this should not be much of a chore to fix back up, but very strange indeed. I suppose this is the result of traffic from the NYT article to the WP one? Aza24 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]