Wikipedia:Peer review/Caffeine/archive1

Caffeine[edit]

This is subject near and dear to me, so I've been spending quite alot of time researching and improving the article. I've also noticed that this article is referenced alot by various websites and the like, so I think it's vital to make this as good as possible. My eventual goal is to refine this article for FA status. – Clockwork Soul 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite attached to this article myself – it was the first Wikipedia article I ever read :) Seems to have grown a lot in the past 3 years, though; excellent. It seems to have been covered on all bases – chemistry, biology, physiology... I can't pick any faults with it. Very good article, well-written, flows nicely, not choppy. I like its chances. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's one flaw I do see in it however: the history section needs some work. I'm waiting until I get another block of free time before I throw myself into it. – Clockwork Soul 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What misses is some words about the treatment of acute caffeine intoxication. --WS 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a refernce for it killing insects? For it being a CNS stimulant? For its equivalency to guaranine and theine? . . . Generally I think you need to cite sources for such facts. Probably they are already in your extensive list of citations, but need to be correctly placed. Also increase the peer-reviewed literature and decrease the web site references (sites come and go, journals/books are forever.) // Can you add something about the history of chocolate, perhaps a link to a page? // Decrease the repetition. For example, how many times do you say that coffee is the biggest source of caffeine? (I've hit 3 or 4 already; ditto for CNS stimulant). // What do you mean by "similar effect on children and adults?" in the "quantitative publication in food products" section? Please retitle this section and move it to after the discussion of C's effects. Remove repetitions of the idea that it can be difficult to determine the amount of caffeine in a drink. // Generally, I think it could be shortened primarily by removing the repetition of material. Satyrium 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was going to comment on the web references as well, but I wasn't sure how to phrase it. It's also a little off-putting to see HowStuffWorks as a reference; it's basically a kiddie website for school projects, isn't it? (Well, that's what I used it for in school!) I may have another look over the article and see if I can find some journal references. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That large majority of the article is referenced, but certainly I can improve many of the references that are not, and I'll get right to it. Thanks for the obvervations. – Clockwork Soul 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations so far: I'm working on resolving my oversights. Please, keep them coming! – Clockwork Soul 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for the quote in Anxiety and sleep disorders and should be switched to prose. There is an article The Truth About Caffeine in Category:Caffeine which is not linked to very much. Either it should be included in this article somewhere or should be put up for AfD (I favor the latter). Jon513 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could work the quote into prose. As for The Truth About Caffeine, it's not especially notable, and I think that I'll nominate it for deletion. – Clockwork Soul 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I shouldn't. People may take my association with the caffeine article as an indication of bias (which, in all honesty, owuld be a fair judgement). I'll leave it to others to nominate. However, I still don't believe that it should be linked to caffeine: it's an article about a book, after all, and not about caffeine itself. – Clockwork Soul 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a problem, just be upfront about the reasons. Jimbo has said that those involved with a project should have their opinions on afd respected more not less. Jon513 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust you, then :) I just nominated it. – Clockwork Soul 05:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]