This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Chapter 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a major maker of vitamins and supplements. The current sourcing is reliable. -- Thriley ( talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, please drop the snarkiness, it is not helpful. Do you have any policy-based reasoning in response to HighKing's detailed explanation? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Back at you, Queen of Snark. Your presence was anticipated. Your history proceeds you. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Cielquiparle. It's great to see the improvements you have made to the article, thank you for your efforts.
As per the "better source needed" tags that you added, I do have concerns regarding the reliability of these sources. However I'd just like to clarify that I added the "failed verification" tag on the statement "based on research conducted" is because the claim is not actually supported in the reference (and the same reasoning also applied to the previous "large number of organic dietary supplements" text, before you improved the wording of it). All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Chapter 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a major maker of vitamins and supplements. The current sourcing is reliable. -- Thriley ( talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, please drop the snarkiness, it is not helpful. Do you have any policy-based reasoning in response to HighKing's detailed explanation? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Back at you, Queen of Snark. Your presence was anticipated. Your history proceeds you. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Cielquiparle. It's great to see the improvements you have made to the article, thank you for your efforts.
As per the "better source needed" tags that you added, I do have concerns regarding the reliability of these sources. However I'd just like to clarify that I added the "failed verification" tag on the statement "based on research conducted" is because the claim is not actually supported in the reference (and the same reasoning also applied to the previous "large number of organic dietary supplements" text, before you improved the wording of it). All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)