Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caffeine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Caffeine

This is the second nomination after the first premature nomination. Since that time, I've put a large amount of work into the article, had it peer reviewed, and put in even more work. This article is referenced a lot by various websites, so I think it's vital to get this article to FA status. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. (points addressed) Hi ClockworkSoul. I would like to offer a couple of observations:
    • I think "Mechanism of action" and "metabolism" should share one main heading, as related to pharmacology. They are currently under "Effects", but, as precursors to effects, should probably come before "Effects" in the article.
      • Added a "pharmacolgy" section to enclose "Mechanism of action", "metabolism", and "tolerance/withdrawl". "Effects" is a less technical section, and I think that it serves as a good lead in to the more technical aspects of pharmacology. – ClockworkSoul 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • With all of the popular press about the possible benefits of caffeine, I see very little reference to that research in the article. It focuses mostly on the adversities (although I see some of the "benefits" in the Mechanism section).
      • Most of that is repeats of the same so-so studies, as far as I can tell. I'll see what I can do to make things a bit more balanced. – ClockworkSoul 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking this over, I notice that the entire beginning of the "effects" section — two whole paragraphs — is about the positive effects. Is there anything specific that you think should be added? – ClockworkSoul 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Could the "caffeine equivalents" listing be made a note/appendix to the article? It breaks up the flow somewhat.
      • I thought about this a bit... I worked it into a relatively small table and moved it to one side. I'm not entirely happy with it yet, but I think it's an improvement. What do you think? – ClockworkSoul 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Much better! I would move it to somewhere on the right margin though. I'm going to remove line breaks from the chem-box for "other names", to decrease its length. If this violates chem-box rules, please revert.
  • What you have accomplished with this article is very good, and it's a tough topic to feature, ranging from chemistry to popular culture, and everything in between. Thanks, Outriggr 10:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: Mostly minor things, but:
    • There should be no spaces between periods and references, or between references for that matter.
      • Looks like somebody else took care of that already. – ClockworkSoul 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There was one [citation needed] tag in the article.
      • That was just added last night. I'll find cite that as soon as I can find something. – ClockworkSoul 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I commented out that sentance, it can be re-added if a source can be found. Since most cola companies keep thier recipes secret I doubt it can be re-added. -Ravedave 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The introduction is supposed to give a general overview of the article, so references are rarely required there. With so many references in the introduction, are you sure the introduction is just giving an overview of the article?
      • They're there because the peer review asked for them. I'll see if I can work any unique information out of the heading and into the article body, and then make the heading more of an overview. – ClockworkSoul 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay - I moved them into the appropriate locations within the article body. – ClockworkSoul 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The infobox is great, but very wide. I understand that each entry there needs alot of space, but is there any this can be fixed up?
      • I shrunk the images and decreased the font size by 10%. How's that? – ClockworkSoul 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing these, but I have one more request before I support. Is there any chance the SVG's could be fixed rather than replaced with the PNG's? Icey seemed more than happy to do them last night, so I don't think he will mind fixing whatever needs to be fixed. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 10:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that won't be a mojor problem. When I redid the images to include some suggestions, my attempts to convert them from PNG to SVG were spectacularly unsuccessful. I hope that Icey won't mind doing it again. – ClockworkSoul 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I thought the old SVGs could just be modified, not have to be completly redone, so sorry about that. I just noticed too, that the Caffeine equivalents table should use metric measurements primarily per WP:MOS regarding scientific articles. darkliight[πalk] 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I've updated the SVG's to fix the errors. Lte me know if anything else needs changing with them and I'll get it sorted. Icey 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Okay: the (beautiful) new SVG's are now happily set in the article. Also, I replaced the "caffeine equivalents" entirely to present information that's a little more useful (and yes, metric measurements are primary). – ClockworkSoul 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support Here's some suggestions. I've crossed out anything I've done, but you may like to review those because you'll know the article much better than I do. I know nothing about Caffeine, so I haven't really looked at it from a content view.
    • References should go directly after punctuation.
    • There's a few dab links: premature, prescription, depression, cyclic amp, robusta, razi, chinese medicine.
    • Measurements should have a non-breaking space between the value and measurement.
    • These pictures should be SVG format: Image:Caffeine_molecule.png, Image:Caffeine_metabolites.png, Image:Caffeine_and_adenosine.png.
      • Just a quick minor problem with the svg you created, it looks great, but the colours seem to be 'seeping'. Sorry - I'm not an image expert and thats the best description I can give :) Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Whooops, I spilt some coffee on them! Do you mean how the lines fade in colour towards the letters? They're meant to do that. Icey 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, sorry - just ignore me :) darkliight[πalk] 13:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Some problems with the original images were pointed out on the talk page to-do list. I'll take care of them tonight at home (that's where my molecule drawing software lives). – ClockworkSoul 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There's some red links around: Alertness, Bunchum, Health scares, Ergogenic, Caffeine intoxication.
      • Unlinked a couple that are unlikely to become articles any time soon. The remainders (health scare, ergogenic) I'll personally turn into articles as soon as this passes into FA status. – ClockworkSoul 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Found an ergogenic aid stub page and wikilinked Ergogenic to it. DMacks 05:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a citation needed template about half way done.
      • That was added last night... I'll find something for it soon. – ClockworkSoul 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My spell checker doesn't know the following words: excipient (probably my spell checker doesn't have that, it's missing a lot of chemistry words), goatherder (two words?), alledging (should be alleging?), overstimulation (two words?), treament
    • There's some American spelling and some English spellings. For example: odorless, milliliters, liters, color, labor, flavor // flavourings, tonnes, recognised, metabolised, flavour.
    • Interwiki links should be sorted.
    • I probably have some coffee jars and stuff around. I could take some pictures if they would be useful? My camera is a bit dodgy and I'm no photographer, but you could see if they are good enough quality and useful to the article.
      • Since I was making coffee anyway, here is a pic if you want: Coffee picture. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope that's useful to you. I got an edit conflict while submitting this, so most of these things have probably been suggested already... Icey 11:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Extraction of pure caffeine" section completely lacks references (sentences in this section such as "The extraction process is simple: CO2 is forced through the green coffee beans at temperatures above 31.1 °C and pressures above 73 atm" need inline referencing). --Oldak Quill 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a few references to that section. Let me know (or post here) if you feel more are required. SoberEmu 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The example of an unrefereced sentence I gave above is still not referenced. There are several other sentences like this in the article. --Oldak Quill 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It appears source 51 covers the whole paragraph. Read that and see if you have any complaints. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article. Only one thing to add to the comments above:

  • The first sentence of the lead is a difficult read, would it be possible to reword it to reduce the number of clauses? Maybe split it into multiple sentences, moving the portion about "also known as" to a second sentence and concentrating on the most commonly known name of "caffeine" in the first sentence.

Thanks, RainbowCrane | Talk 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done - See if you like it. -Ravedave 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added some concerns, especially about the structural drawings, to the Talk page before I saw that we were talking about it here on the FAC page. DMacks 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The structural mistakes are now fixed. Bit of color cleanup still needed (some nitrogens are black instead of blue...comment left on ). But overall...
    • Support. This is a well-written article that has "something for everyone"...many facets of the topic discussed at many different levels/target audiences. Mechanical aspects of the writing is looks good, and info seems well-referenced. DMacks 05:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article. Outriggr 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I noticed this article last week and thought 'hrm this should be an FA'. Caveat - I have edited the article several times the last few days, so I have a vested interest. -Ravedave help name my baby 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support When I first saw this article nominated, I had a few of the same concerns as above, but now that they have been addressed, this looks like a great article that deserves to be promoted. Teemu08 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. I had a number of suggestions earlier and they have all been addressed.Satyrium 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Like the article! The chemistry is good from the point of a chemist. The only Comment I have is that the first synthesis of caffeine by Emil Fischer should be mentioned. (E. Fischer, L. Ach, Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 1895, 28, 3135.) --Stone 09:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice article. It seems like the concerns that have been posted have been addressed, and I believe that this would make a good FA. SoberEmu 22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I may have nominated it, and I may have written the majority of it, but I support its FAS promotion. I'm allowed to do that, right? – ClockworkSoul 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --WS 21:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This article has come a long way. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Some P. Erson 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - ALoopingIcon 04:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm too late and it's been promoted, but wanted to add that it's exceptionally well written. -- Samir धर्म 23:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) – ClockworkSoul 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)