The article was kept by Dana boomer 00:21, 31 December 2011 [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because its referencing and comprehensive problems. Throughout the entire article, there are multiple Citation Needed templates and unreferenced sections on the page. As well, there are sections in the article that need expanding, like the ones found in the Form section. GamerPro64 15:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
It looks like Nikki has done a huge amount of cleanup on this article over the past week or so. Could we get some updated thoughts GamerPro, Brad and anyone else who's interested? Dana boomer ( talk) 00:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Citations [1] and [124] have broken ISBNs; there is a span tag present in each but I'm not sure why it's there. Citation [3] contains a passim. There are also citations which end in a period after the page number/s and some that do not. Brad ( talk) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No FARC All looks well. Brad ( talk) 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by Nikkimaria 22:02, 22 December 2011 [2].
Article was promoted in 2005 and suffers from not being kept up to standards. Talk page notice was given in December 2010.
The article was removed by Nikkimaria 02:25, 20 December 2011 [3].
I am nominating this featured article for review because after a work needed notice last month, nothing has been done to improve the article. Some specifics:
To summarize: the sourcing is probably the biggest issue, between dead links, unreliable references, spots missing sources, missing page numbers, etc. MOS compliance (ENGVAR, image placement) also needs work, as does prose. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The entire article needs thorough copy-editing for style, grammar and readability, in my opinion. I am happy to help, but I think we have a hard road ahead of us, especially in terms of article stability. Kafka Liz ( talk) 06:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I think the grammar is mostly OK (it would probably only take me a couple of hours to fix the grammar mistakes) but I agree with Kafka Liz above that the article is not very readable. Perhaps this is due to too many small details being included which ought to be either summarised (e.g. only the Izmir population figure is rounded - the rest are quoted to single digits) or moved to the linked articles or both. Also perhaps there should be a section on human resources (probably not titled that) to summarise education, knowledge and skills. By the way does anyone know when the recent census will be published? In my opinion the article should be demoted from "featured" status until it is improved. Jzlcdh ( talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:09, 9 December 2011 [4].
Article was promoted in 2005 and needs work to meet the current criteria. Talk page notice was given during December 2010.
The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:09, 9 December 2011 [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there is much primary research present when there are many recent review articles we could be using instread, the references are not in a consistent format, many of the references are outdated. Will work on improving it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I actually really liked the article. I believe the small paragraphs would be easy for any reader to follow along. I am very aware of the "Tolerance and Withdrawal" affects. The sources are outdated, and I would think that there would be new and improved sources to be found. Kristen46 ( talk)
Delist Major issues are 1c and 2c. Brad ( talk) 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a long digression, and largely off-topic. Suggest removing the whole middle (which I've italicized).In 1911, kola became the focus of one of the earliest documented health scares, when the US government seized 40 barrels and 20 kegs of Coca-Cola syrup in Chattanooga, Tennessee, alleging the caffeine in its drink was "injurious to health".[110] On March 13, 1911, the government initiated United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, hoping to force Coca-Cola to remove caffeine from its formula by making claims the product was adulterated and misbranded. The allegation of adulteration was, in substance, that the product contained an added poisonous or added deleterious ingredient: caffeine, which might render the product injurious to health. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name 'Coca Cola' was a representation of the presence of the substances coca and cola; that the product 'contained no coca and little if any cola' and thus was an 'imitation' of these substances and was offered for sale under their 'distinctive name.'[111] Although the judge ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, two bills were introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1912 to amend the Pure Food and Drug Act, adding caffeine to the list of "habit-forming" and "deleterious" substances, which must be listed on a product's label.[citation needed]
There's still a lot to begin listing-- I wouldn't even try to take on the MOS issues until the content is further along. The original version that passed FAC was poorly cited, but much more concise and better written than this version, which seems to have taken on a lot of cruft over the years. It reads like an article where lots of editors plopped in whatever news came across their daily screen about caffeine, so I suggest looking at the version that passed for structural ideas might help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I am more or less happy with the summary of health effects. Have not really look at much else. Do not comment on style :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by Dana boomer 22:25, 3 December 2011 [6].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it fails the featured article criteria, specifically:
Comment. I think a review every now and then is good. Frankly, I'd write it differently today. These points have been raised before though.
Media criteria 3
Delist Major issues are 1c, 1d and 3. Since nomination the article has had only 11 edits. Brad ( talk) 10:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply
That's all for now. Replies are welcome after each comment above. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply