| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natural product 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | Natural product was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 23, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Proposal to move the "Biotechnological approaches" section from Secondary metabolite page edit
I am thinking it would make sense to merge the Biotechnological approaches section from the secondary metabolite page with this article, since this page is more focused on human uses of secondary metabolites. What do you all think? Ethan Bass (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Natural product/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This article contains a major cleanup banner that is still relevant (no sources in the final section, "Milestones"), and many [citation needed] tags, some as old as 2014. As such it was not ready for a GA nomination, and mets WP:GAFAIL criterion #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Cheers. (A former contributor and prof.) 73.8.193.28 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)