Talk:Safflower: Difference between revisions
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Plants}}, {{WikiProject Food and drink}}, {{WikiProject Abortion}}. |
No edit summary Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=no|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=Mid}} |
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=Mid}} |
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=Mid}} |
Revision as of 09:50, 13 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Safflower article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edible Oil
This section states the important fact that there are two kind of this oil with very different primary fatty acids, and notes that the high-oleic kind is currently the predominant one in the edible oil market. Following this is a table showing fatty acid composition without identifying which kind it is for, which is in fact it is for the non-predominent high-linoleic kind. This is very misleading. I've modified the title of this table with "high-linoleic" and added a table with the rough fatty acid composition of the high-oleic kind. It is not as detailed as the first table, coming from only one source and so not offering a min/max range, and only including the major fatty acid components, but it at least clears up what was previously grossly misleading. It could be improved later. --Ericjs (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)