Quince has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 6, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

The article became a GA earlier this year, but - while improvements are always welcome - the addition of an elaborate table showing 60 years of outdated history in production by Иованъ with edit Special:Diff/1298619908 is WP:UNDUE. The simpler table format and text that existed before (needs updating to the latest UN info for 2023) was adequate and sufficiently informative.

Let's think about what basic information the general reader would be seeking about production: a. most recent data (2023), b. world total, and c. leading countries seems sufficient. Not everything about production going back 60 years and remaining out of date (to 2021) needs to be discussed, as exists in the current production section.

Including minor producers, such as those listed below #6, then discussing very minor producers, such as Russia and Bulgaria, seems really out of place. Further, the text edited into the revision is entirely the WP:OR interpretation by user Иованъ, having no secondary sources (only the FAOSTAT data).

What do GA editors Chiswick Chap and BigChrisKenney feel about this? Zefr (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to having the table removed. It's not needed and it affects the article's balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be expanding and splitting the section off into a standalone article. The section was not ready yet, so I have removed it. Well, not without collaboration, anyway. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 18:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: No need to mention: "reliably cited, certainly correct" as I didn't state it wasn't those. Why you think this particular part of all the information is important enough to indicate in the first viewing - that it's shown at the intro - introduces what exactly about the complete subject? Is shown under "Cultural associations" as 1 sentence with no other mention of continuation of the subject - how do you then think it is so important as you've promoted? Cattenion (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC) The reason I gave "offensive" you see anywhere I stated a personal preference against - which again isn't anything which I stated which you again have defended against "if you don't like then". If you could respond to my summary reasons then I would have something relevant to the criticism that I provided instead of criticisms I actually didn't make. Cattenion (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key point here is the not censored bit, and we certainly can't change that. Anyone who finds a truth offensive is free to ignore it but not to delete it; this only applies to verifiable truths, so it was and is essential to include that half of the situation for that reason.

The presence in the lead is discussable; I included it because it's the most striking fact on the cultural side, and the lead is meant to cover each section of the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The given claim was not backed up by the source. I have removed it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are partly right here. Foster quotes Aristophanes (Acharnians) as likening (in Greek) the breast to a quince (kydonia), so the comparison is made, and nobody doubts that Aristophanes was doing so as a comic playwright, but I agree that a clearer source spelling things out for a modern audience would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history provided is inconsistent, and this contradiction (16th century versus AD1275) is due to the cited references. Can an expert please evaluate the sources and resolve this contradiction? Meanwhile the article should be downgraded from GA status. ~2025-41827-80 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article so that the history is all in one place and tells a unified story. Sources are of course free to disagree; in this case, there is clear documentary evidence for the earlier date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]