From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleParsnip 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.
Article milestones
September 26, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
October 25, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.

weasel words etc[edit]

Don't you think someone has gone a little overboard here with the citation neededs, vagues, weasel words, etc.?

In Roman times parsnips were believed[weasel words] to be an aphrodisiac. how is were believed a weasel word? Doesn't In Roman times imply pretty directly that Romans in general believed this?

Seeds can be[vague] planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked. How exactly can this be clarified? Harvesting can[vague] begin in late fall after the first frost, Same here. How would you recommend this be clarified?

Ironically,[weasel words] it is among the closest relatives of actual parsley,[citation needed] which actually[weasel words] can be bred to develop a very parsnip-like root.[citation needed]

I removed the ironically, Irony is the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, as such there's nothing ironic about the Parsnip being related to parsley, it's actually utterly appropriate- bbuddha

If Ironically and actually are weasel words, would it not be more productive to simply remove them than just attach warnings? Would it not be a better use of one's time to correct the errors in an article rather than fill it with warnings that make it unreadable? LeeWilson (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I've removed all the tags. I left the "references need improvement" and "article tone needs fixing" templates at the top in case anybody is interested in working on it. – jaksmata 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Parsnips can also be fried, or can be eaten raw, although raw parsnips are not frequently consumed." (??!) Isn't that a contradictory statement? Are they or aren't they eaten raw? Yes but no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that means "you can eat them raw, but that's not very popular". In my experience, it's more edible raw than potatoes, but certainly less edible than raw carrots. JöG (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points. The sentence is a bit confusing, if not actually self-contradictory. I will make an effort at clarifying it. GodaiNoBaka (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Article suggestions[edit]

I have a suggestion. Is it possible for someone to photograph a Parsnip themselves , one actually growing in the ground and then one just being uprooted with all the attatchments etc ?

George Archer 11.04.08

Nutritional value[edit]

What does The parsnip has greater nutritional value than any vegetable except the potato mean? Calories? Surely peas & beans have more protein. Please make this more clear. --JBellis 20:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have left this in after a revision, but feel that it needs at least a reference to the source of this info.Dave 19:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I was looking for informations about parsnip and I found this page: [1] . The two first paragraphs of the webpage are almost word-to-word copy of the wiki page... Is there a way to be sure there is no copyright infringement? Or maybe it's the other way around... --Lukeluke 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That site has copied/pasted from the wikipedia article. I remember putting the bit about potatoes replacing parsnips in cooking in myself ([2]) This is OK. Dave 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are Carrots That Old?[edit]

I thought carrots were created by American Scientists byt cross breeding two other different kind of roots vegetables. How can carrots be confused with parsnips when in Roman times they didn't even exist?? 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Ok, I looked up the Wikipedia article on carrots. Anyone reading this please ignore what I typed above!! 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Erotic Parsnip photography[edit]

I think the title says it all. Interesting choice of photo. Halogenated 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do this kind of curiosity belongs to this article? Though I had a good chuckle -- if no one manifests against it -- I'll be removing the image in 7 days. SaintCahier (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove it as soon as it was added on the basis of being non-encyclopedic, but being unsure, I decided to leave it. I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think that's justification for putting obviously sexual material in articles that have nothing to do with sex. The picture is amusing in a sense, and it may belong somewhere in Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong here. – jaksmata 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not get into a reversal-battle. People who think the image is relevant, please, be kind to expose their point of view here, otherwise it will seem like vandalism. SaintCahier (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image. Please do not reverse without further discussing the matter here, otherwise I'll report it as vandalism. Thank you. SaintCahier (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Has anyone come across any hybridisation of parsnips?

I can't think of any hybrids in the whole Apiaceae. Why do you ask? JöG (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you know if they have come up with any red parsnips yet? I understand there are now red and blue carrots (take your pick), so why can't there be red parsnips? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparing parsnip and hemlock[edit]

"Poison hemlock contains volatile alkaloids that have been used as poisons since ancient times. The best way to differentiate it from parsnip are purple streaks and blotches on a smooth hairless stem."

This is a bit vague as to whether it is hemlock or parsnip that has this characteristic. Considering one is edible and the other is incredibly poisonous, it might be a good idea to make this entirely unambiguous Treeturtle81 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Purple streaks" are Conium. Actually, that whole parsnip/hemlock thing does not make sense, and I added another [citation needed]. I have a lot of experience with both in the wild, and they look nothing alike. This is also easy to confirm by looking at the pictures here. Hard to say what the author was trying to get at. Maybe there is some other poisonous Apiaceae in his/her region which does look like parsnip. Cicuta virosa comes to mind. JöG (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous "reference needed" Tag?[edit]

Undid revision 299247964 by (talk) Removed "reference needed" tag

Undid addition of a "reference needed" tag about a statement inside quotation marks with a footnote. The reference was indeed there. Specifically, the tag had been added to a parenthetical assertion that in ancient times carrots were purple or white. This parenthetical assertion was a part of a quoted passage about the difficulty of distinguishing carrots from parsnips in classical writings; the passage was attributed to Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf. Jay L09 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no discussion of phototoxicity?[edit]

The branches/flowers of poison parsnip (another name for regular parsnip, I think) is pretty phototoxic. If you brush against it, it can get sap on your skin that reacts with sunlight to give you serious burns. This is how I learned about parsnip, and I'm surprised that there's nothing about it in the Wikipedia article. Like poison ivy, it's something people are supposed to watch out for at edges of clearings and stuff, especially the more it spreads. Why no mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Poison parsnip" is Cicuta, which has its own article. There is a bit about this plant giving skin burns, although it doesn't mention phototoxicity specifically. Feel free to expand on it if you'd like. – jaksmata 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


The article claims "Parsnips resemble carrots, but are paler than most carrots and have a sweeter flavor."

Um... no. No they don't. Have you ever ate a parsnip? As far as I can say, it's like a carrot but without the flavor. It's certainly not sweeter. I'd call this claim spurious at best, and just plain wrong at worst.Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'd call this claim spurious at best, and just plain wrong at worst."

I could say the same about your claim. To me, and many of my relatives, parsnips are "sweet". Perhaps it has something to do with when and where it was cultivated. Are they sweeter than carrots? I suppose that depends on the person.

Instead of inflicting your opinion of taste (which I find is highly subject to the individual) on others, maybe you could state that you personally disagree with the author on this point and suggest a re-wording of his/her statement to it make more general....such as "some people find that the parsnip has a mild sweet taste, not unlike the carrot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are, however, objective ways of extracting sugar. You would need access to a laboratory, but I am sure it can be done. And once you determine how many milligrams of sugar can be extracted from ten kilograms of pulped parsnips, you can have a pretty good idea how sweet the plant's root is. If the sugar is dissolved in water you can use a spectrometer to get an even better idea how sweet it is. The next question, here, is whether there is a practical way of distinguishing the sugar of the common parsnip from any of the other carbohydrates that can be extracted from it. The main page of this article could be improved by discussing the nutrients (and sugars) of the common parsnip. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not richer in vitamins and minerals than carrots...[edit]

Carrots ( have higher micronutrient levels than parsnips ( if is to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


  • Walker, Harlan (1995). Disappearing Foods: Studies in Foods and Dishes at Risk : Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1994. ISBN 9780907325628.

--Stone (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I am familiar with other articles by User:Cwmhiraeth, and recognize his hard work and dedication.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

After a few of the revisions, I mention below, I'll do a copyedit on the article.

Just a few comments...

  • The etymology section is too short to exist as a stand-alone section. Perhaps it could be added to (1) the history section, or (2) as part of taxonomy and rename it "taxonomy and naming". I think (1) is the better of the options.
I prefer combining it with the Taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In the lede:
    • "...a vegetable since ancient times..." how about "since Antiquity"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In Description:
    • "The plant has an apical meristem that produces a rosette of pinnate leaves. The lower leaves are petiolate, the upper leaves are sessile, and the terminal leaves have three lobes." - this should be explained so that it is accessible to the average Wikipedia reader.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "has a chromosome number of 2n=22." -- explain this more. It's a technical axiom that most people won't understand.
I'll leave Sasata to explain this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In History:
    • This is a very long sentence. "Zohary and Hopf note that the archaeological evidence for the cultivation of the parsnip is "still rather limited", and that Greek and Roman literary sources are a major source about its early use, but warn "there are some difficulties in distinguishing between parsnip and carrot (which, in Roman times, were white or purple) in classical writings since both vegetables seem to have been sometimes called pastinaca yet each vegetable appears to be well under cultivation in Roman times"."
Split. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "was much esteemed and the Emperor Tiberius accepted part of the tribute payable to Rome by Germany in the form of parsnips" - why was it esteemed to be used in tribute? When explaining why it was esteemed, it might be good to divide the sentence, and start the second with the Emperor Tiberius reference.
    • what precisely was said about it in "Marvels of Milan" (1288)?
    • "He back-crossed cultivated plants to wild stock," just doesn't sound right.
    • "...experiment was so successful..." - sounds like an editorial judgment. also, what made it successful?
  • In Use
    • "fried or thinly sliced and made into crisps." - clarify this for a global audience...while they're not on the shelves in the US (that I know about), crisps is a BritEng idiom that would not be known by many Americans...a crisp would be akin to the AmerEng "potato chips" (although the Brits have a different idea of what a "chip" is).
  • In Etymology:
    • OED and other Oxford dictionary state "ME: from OFr. pasnaie, from L. pastinaca (rel. to pastinare 'dig and trench the ground'); ending assimilated to neep. (cf. turnip)"
  • Layout: I think the Use, Nutritional properties, and Dangers should be associated as three subsection of one larger section. I think Cultivation should be moved up above the new Use/Nutrtionalproperties/Dangers section.
  • Rename "Dangers" to "toxicity and exposure" or something like that.
  • Rename "Cultivation problems" to "Pests and diseases"
  • In cultivation, there should be more information about where it's grown in the world, and issues of trade and transportation (parsnips don't seem to travel as well as carrots), and production yields in the field, fertilization, pesticide use, and global import/exportation figures.

Suggestion-- can we find a good picture of a parsnip dish?

Just a few things I noticed on first pass.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In "Cultivation," the entire section is written like a seed packet. Cultivation should be about the ecology of the plant, soil preferences, latitudinal sunshine, fertilizers, not growing instructions for backyard farmers. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  • "Description" -- an apical meristem is not a "single central growing point," as meristms are areas of undifferentiated tissue, not points. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  • I've removed "single central growing point" and just left the link. Do you see any more problems with this section? Sasata (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@AfadsBad: - Thanks for your suggestions. However, GA reviews have one reviewer unless a second opinion is asked for, I didn't ask for one. So please, do not interfere with my review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, how nasty. Please change your template to be accurate, then:
Further reviiews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
So please, don't invite what you don't want. Meanwhile, in return for the nastiness, I'll just tag the hell out of the article and leave you to your ownership issues. Have fun with the article stability part, User:Cwmhiraeth. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

GA criteria:

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]

As I have been told to fuck off from commenting during the review, I will just dispute the content, in the article, where I find problems. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

GA review failure[edit]

On the advice of other GA reviewers and admins, and unfortunately due to instability introduced into the article because of the hijacking of this review by User:Afadsbad, and the disruptively pointy tagging of the article by said user, I must regrettably fail this article's GA nomination at this time. Apparently, disruption wins and goes on without remediative action, and Wikipedia condones people hijacking GA reviews. I apologize to User:Cwmhiraeth and User:Sasata because of these events interfering with their hardwork on the article and wish them luck going forward and on the next GA review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is it said that no-one else may comment in a review process? To the contrary, it's made clear in several places that additional comments are welcome. For example, look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations: for all articles in review it says "Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." Responding to perfectly reasonable comments by User:AfadsBad as User:ColonelHenry did was both factually incorrect and rude. Yes, AfadsBad then rather over-reacted, in my view, but the initial fault was clearly not his. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments, sure. Hijacking a review, no. I thanked Afadsbad for his/her comments, and asked that he/she not interfere. He/she proceeded to do just that...and made comments here and elsewhere that he/she intended to disrupt it. Apparently, you do not know all of the facts. Nevertheless, it's moot. Afadsbad's bad intentions won the day. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not "moot" if you don't accept that writing However, GA reviews have one reviewer unless a second opinion is asked for, I didn't ask for one. So please, do not interfere with my review was wrong, since you may do it again. All that AfadsBad had done up to that point was to flag some botanical errors; he hadn't expressed any opinion on the status of the article. The clear sense of what you wrote was that he should not be commenting, and this is not correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC))
By the way, I am finding serious botanical errors in many more good articles by a small set of editors and reviewers. We probably need to deal with this at Plants. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC))
Peter will come to the same conclusion everyone else did in your multiple failed and continued attempts to say what isn't true: you were out of line. Now move on and get over it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

(Personal attack removed)

Non good article review -- all are welcome[edit]

"Description" -- an apical meristem is not a "single central growing point," as meristms are areas of undifferentiated tissue, not points. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)) I've removed "single central growing point" and just left the link. Do you see any more problems with this section? Sasata (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the smooth root versus lateral roots sentence. The whole apical meristem sentence implies there is only one, yet parsnip is an umbel, plants with unique shoot apical meristems to produce their distinctive inflorescences. The technical description of the wild parsnip seems excessive, but also I worry it might be a copy vio. These parts could be written for understanding. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

I wrote this part and was careful to reword carefully from the source, but would welcome any tweaks/deletions/additions that might help make it more accessible to the general reader. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I will take your word on this. Is there a separate article on wild parsnip? The description is more detailed than that for the cultivated plant. It would be better to descibe the cultivar then differentiate to reduce detail.
I see, it just appeared to be about wild parsnip. Good. I like less detail, but I think that is my personal taste on plant articles, so it is fine now.

What about its odor? The article seems to distinguish only the wild as having an odor, but that is not correct. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

This implication should be gone now (moved the preceding sentence about wild parsnip). Sasata (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cultivation --This entire section is written as if to help the reader grow parsnips. The section needs rewritten --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Agree, and will work on this. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.

Work on technical description[edit]

Parsnip is a biennial with a rosette of roughly hairy leaves that has a pungent odor when crushed.

Mention that a biennial grows only vegetative parts the first year; root vegetables are often planted as annuals because there is no need to allow the plant to put any energy into flowering.

The petioles are grooved and have sheathed bases. The leaves are once- or twice-pinnate with broad, ovate, sometimes lobed leaflets with toothed margins; they grow up to 40 cm (16 in) long.

Generally describe the leaf first (the plant form, rosette of leaves, leaf form, then details), because it is hard for the reader to jump back and forth. Botanists can tell plant description online that were written by amateurs and for Wikipedia (not a bad thing), because of this disorder that makes the descriptions hard to read. Biggest to smallest, then parts and details.

The flower stalk develops in the second year, growing to a height of 40 to 200 cm (20 to 80 in).

Mention again that the cultivated plant is/is not usually allowed to flower (I suspect not, just some longer growth).

It is hairy, grooved, hollow (except at the nodes), and sparsely branched.

Wikilink nodes.

It has a few stalkless, single-lobed leaves measuring 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) long that are arranged in opposite pairs.

A little confusing, stalkless leaves on the stalk?

The yellow flowers are in a loose, compound umbel measuring 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) in diameter. There are 6–25 straight pedicels, each measuring 2–5 cm (1–2 in) that support the umbellets (secondary umbels). The umbels and umbellets usually have no upper or lower bracts. The flowers have tiny sepals or lack them entirely, and measure about 3.5 mm. They consist of five yellow petals that are curled inward, five stamens, and one pistil.

I would describe the umbel, The "yellow flowers grow loosely on a compound umbel," then move onto secondary umbels and the flowers. This is a little confusing.

The fruits, or schizocarps, are oval and flat, with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. They are colored straw to light brown, and measure 4–8 mm long.[3]

I would probably say, "The fruits are oval and flat schizocarps with narrow wings and short, spreading styles.

Excellent choice of a source for a plant description section, by the way. The weed articles tend to be easier for the general reader to get for further information and easier for all readers and editors to understand. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Cultivation section[edit]

I regularly write plant articles, and find it difficult to understand precisely how to follow WP:NOTHOW while satisfying the requirements of readers. To a large extent it seems a matter of "tone", which is a somewhat subjective judgement. So please take these comments as discussion points.

Some issues I see in the current version are:

  • "a favorite with gardeners in areas with short growing seasons" – "favorite" strikes me as not quite the right phrasing for an encyclopedia. Does it mean that parsnips are more often grown in areas with short growing seasons? Or that they are particularly suited to areas with short growing seasons? These would be factual statements, verifiable by sources. "Favorite" feels subjective.
  • "Sandy, loamy soil is preferred; silty, clayey, and stony soils are unsuitable, as they produce short, forked roots." The words "preferred" and "unsuitable" again don't feel quite right to me. The facts are that parsnips produce longer roots in sandy, loamy soil and shorter forked roots in silty, clayey or stony soils. Which is good or bad isn't for Wikipedia to say; we merely report the facts.
  • "Parsnip seed significantly deteriorates in viability if stored for long, so using fresh seed each year will help ensure optimal yields." The first half of the sentence reports a fact. The second gives advice; NOTHOW is against giving advice.
  • "Seeds can be planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked to a fine tilth. Seed is sown 2 cm (0.8 in) deep in rows 30 cm (12 in) apart in the position where the plants are to grow. They are thinned to a distance of 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) depending on whether they are small or large cultivars. Alternatively, they can be station sown with groups of three seeds sown at intervals. A fast-growing crop such as radishes can be intersown between the stations and the parsnips can be thinned down to a single seedling at each after the radishes have been harvested." This is surely advice or could even be construed as a recipe. The part about radishes is especially inappropriate. The use of "can" throughout shows that this is not a description of parsnips or how they are grown either commercially or by home gardeners, but advice and instruction.
  • "... low soil temperatures enhance their flavor, as some of the carbohydrates stored in the roots get converted into sugars." The second part is a fact; the first is not. Personally I dislike parsnips, partly because I find them too sweet (along with sweet potatoes and pumpkins). So I would regard low soil temperatures as reducing their acceptability. All we should say in Wikipedia is something like "low soil temperatures cause some of the starches stored in the roots to be converted to sugars [sugars are carbohydrates], which causes them to taste sweeter."

Here's a possible rewrite. A purist would probably omit the part in green but it's ok by me.

The wild parsnip from which the modern cultivated varieties were derived is a plant of dry rough grassland and waste places, particularly on chalk and limestone.[1] Parsnips are biennials, normally grown as annuals. They produce acceptable crops in areas with short growing seasons.[?] Silty, clayey, and stony soils produce short, forked roots compared to sandy, loamy soils. Parsnip seed significantly deteriorates in viability if stored for long. Seeds are usually planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked to a fine tilth. Seed is sown 2 cm (0.8 in) deep in rows 30 cm (12 in) apart in the position where the plants are to grow. They are thinned to a distance of 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) depending on whether they are small or large cultivars. Alternatively, they are station sown with groups of three seeds sown at intervals. Harvesting begins in late fall after the first frost, and continues through winter. To enable the crop to be lifted during frosty weather, it is recommended that the rows are protected, for example with straw.[2] Low soil temperatures cause some of the starches stored in the roots to be converted into sugars, giving them a sweeter taste.[3]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference McKlintock 1956 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference RHS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Rubatsky et al. (1999), p. 225.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This would obviously be a thoughtful, more encyclopedic improvement considering WP:NOTHOW. Your green text might also be introduced with an "according to … seed is [normally? regularly? usually?] sown…", and one or more appropriate in-line citations, but it is tricky. Hamamelis (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've used "According to" or "[Source] advises" intros in the past, but have wondered if they perhaps amount to gaming NOTHOW. I've taken Telopea speciosissima#Cultivation as a model of ideal style, though I can't claim to have matched it! The Australian FA articles are always worth studying. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Judging by your model example (especially the fourth paragraph, which is perhaps the closest at nudging up to WP:NOTHOW), it looks like such precision (e.g.: …sown 2 cm (0.8 in) deep in rows 30 cm (12 in) apart…) would be out. Stating that they are "station sown with groups of three seeds sown at intervals" doesn't seem to cross the line to me. Noting that Telopea speciosissima#Cultivation has a lot of historical background, using historical references for cultivation techniques (traditional vs. modern vs. varying traditions, etc?), where/if they can be found, would be one good way to go, especially as parsnips are a food crop and have a long cultivation history. Hamamelis (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Old books for cultivation history[edit]

These are, in no particular order, some old books I found at Project Gutenberg which could possibly be used, but only for historical research for the article should any wish to:

Mostly included just for fun, but it does mention Pastinaca sativa.
Potentially looks excellent.
In French.

Should I become ambitious, I may try them myself. Hamamelis (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Health Benefits" should include getting Liver Cancer[edit]

The FDA noyes that Parsnip root is Hepatotoxic. Re sweetness, Parsnip is added to savory soups and stews to impart an aromatic flavor. (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parsnip/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A tasty article, full of flavour

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Some of the external links could use access dates. Also, the last one is broken.
    Done. They all work for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    One "citation required"
    New source found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are appropriately licensed.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No picture of parsnip as a food?[edit]

I'm surprised this article passed GA. Parsnip is an important food, but there is no food picture here, only plant picture. Anyway, I tried adding one, but it got reverted for some reason. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the addition because it was blatant advertising for a restaurant. However, I have added two images of cooked parsnips, that I found on Commons, that do not come with advertising baggage.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't advertising - it was cited to a major metropolitan newspaper. I agree that it needed a photo of parsnip as a "main", but the dessert use could also be mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph after paragraph of WP:OR[edit]

The article has existed since 2003, had a "citations needed"-type of article tag as early as 2008, but having such removed without attending to the issue, it has become yet another morass of "just trust me" editor's erudition—a lede, at least, of stated purported facts without citation anywhere—at least since May 2013. As for the in-body citations—added at end of paragraph, post hoc, or truly encompassing all the material preceding the citation? (For an initial glimpse into the lede problem, the tip of the proverbial faux-encyclopedic iceberg, search the phytoanatomical term "winged", and see its appearance just once, absent citation, in the lede. Then rinse and repeat.) This is just one of what has become far too many cases of such writing prevalent here, likewise, and shamefully, existing without any deserved warning to readers whatsoever (which, since the emergence of mobile as preeminent mode of access, is the institutional status quo for our articles). So, specifically, shame on the editor that removed the "refimprove", thus setting the stage for the article to expand for a decade in the direction of pseudo-scholarly, pseudo-encyclopedic content, and shame on editors that continue to add content sans sourcing. Et, bonne chance to the dedicated editor that will take the time to review each sentence, to see if all the material preceding the citations actually appears therein. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4CE9:701A:E5B8:D10C (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Well, try WP:GAR, or find a reference for the winged seeds. It's entirely clear what you are going for here. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said, @Drmies: tip of the iceberg. Pick any of a variety of further terms, and as I said, repeat. And even if I believed in the scholarly validity of post hoc addition of possible citations to units of content (I do not, for book-length reasons I will let you contemplate unshared)—I am not in the habit of cleaning up the messes made by earnest masses of individuals that so thoroughly disrespect applicable WP guidelines and policy (other than my students, in any case); certainly not, at such a scale as this. No, this is an institutional problem, dear leader, and demands an institutional solution. (The carte blanche disappearance of issue tags from mobile platforms, and the clear trend toward superficially beautifying articles through tag removal without rectifying issues has convinced me it is worth only the effort to question individuals doing this on large scale.) Cheers, bonne chance with any efforts you make in the direction of WP as a reliable encyclopedia, one whose contributors consistently follow its stated rules. Perhaps begin with WP:GAR action, and placing the appropriate article tags; the issues are prima facie obvious. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4CE9:701A:E5B8:D10C (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the IP editor's specific example about the term winged, there does seem some confusion in the article between the use of fruits and seeds. The sentence in the lead states "The seeds are pale brown, flat, and winged", in the body it states "The fruits, or schizocarps, are oval and flat, with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. They are colored straw to light brown, and measure 4 to 8 mm". The source that is used in the body states, "Fruits (schizocarps) oval, with a distinctive woody endocarp (Theobald 1971), splitting into two strongly flattened 'seeds' (mericarps) with flat sides adjacent, each seed rounded or oval in outline and narrowly winged, 4-8 mm long, straw-coloured to light brown". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that too, PaleCloudedWhite, but am not knowledgeable enough to do something about that. IP, I'm not picking anything, nor am I about to fly to San Francisco or to VP to propose some institutional measure. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a botanist, so hesitate to make botanical assertions, though obviously any source should be represented accurately. In this instance, depending on the correctness of interchanging the terms mericarp and seed, the lead seems to fulfill that requirement, though the body perhaps doesn't. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)