Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Guarana/1

Guarana

 * • Watch article reassessment page • most recent GAN review

Result: Delist Two months and very little improvement. Clear consensus to delist. AIR corn (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Several one-sentence paragraphs. Prose is terrible.
 * "Beverages" section has several [citation needed]s.
 * Are there any more recent studies on its effects?
 * Is more known about its history?

The article seems very short. I'm sure there's much more to be said about its history and use in products, and its effects. Are there any more recent studies on what it can do? It's widely used in energy drinks, so there should be more to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the citations, but it still needs wp:MEDRS for medical assertions. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points made above. The one-sentence paragraphs make the article read as a series of facts, instead of clear, encyclopedic prose. For the History section, it would be helpful to provide chronological context. For example, the portion on the Guaranís mentions no (even approximate) date or time--making it tricky for the reader to determine when this cultural practice began and whether it is still in use today. The last two sentences in this section also omit much detail, jumping quickly from 16th century use of Guarana in Europe to its commercialization in 1958. The first portion of the History and use section of the Stevia plant article, while not perfect, could serve as a solid model for these purposes. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delist Agree with the above about broadness and prose. Virtually nothing has been done to address these issues despite sources being availible AIR corn  (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist per TenPoundHammer's concerns. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist. Too many short, choppy sentences. I'm not an expert but think the coverage isn't broad. No interested editors from the looks of things. Szzuk (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)