Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Stevia/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Horrible. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just wondering: It appears to be listed as GA but has no GA icon? Was there an error? I guess no harm done considering the shape atm, but it should still be looked into. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The GA icon was removed in this edit, apparently by mistake. I have restored it. This is not a commentary on the current status of the article, but just that it was made a GA and should retain that icon unless delisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Delist Loads of issues. Some are listed below:
- Firstly, some of the text doesn't even have refs?
- Secondly, I'm thinking parts of this aren't complying with the parts of the MOS that it states in the Good article criteria
- The article has too many lists
- The citations in the lead are unecessary
- I thinking some of the refs could be expanded or maybe some more reliable offline ones? I'll nitpick a few.
- Please add the author of the New York Times.
- One the refs lacks a title.
- Last ref could be expanded
If these are fixed I will vote keep. Thanks,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is the last reviewed version: June 2009 In April 2014, in the edit BlueMoonset links to, it was split into Stevia (sweetener) and Stevia rebaudiana (plant) and Stevia (genus). This sweetener article has attracted edits which have degraded the content in terms of organization and poor or no citations. maclean (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)