Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caffeine/archive1

Oppose. Article requires proper use of inline citations and a longer lead. LD50s must be cited in terms of mg/kg/day, and mentioning the animal on which the cited value was found (usually some rodent) wouldn't hurt either. Human LD50s are most of the time conservative estimates since we cannot test lethal doses of stuff on humans. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 11:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; underdeveloped sections (history and dangers especially), short lead, and only a few badly formatted inline citations. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good information, well-written. (Ibaranoff24 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Object in addition to what Run e Welsh stated, article should have gone through a peer review. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Is close, but requires a more logical section ordering as well as some cosmetic work. Peer Review recommended. RyanGerbil10 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]