Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Due to ongoing content disputes and edit warring for the last month, the article clearly fails GA criteria 5 and is not stable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist. The article is incoherent: it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity. Needs a complete re-write (as discussed in Talk). The edit-warring is a symptom of this I think. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist Agree needs significant work. Needs further organizations. The medical aspects section contains lots of non medical aspects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist Agree with my colleagues above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist I'm in lockstep agreement with all the above. It's going to end up being a good article, but for now it's not something we want to highlight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist due to content disputes concerning NPOV. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retain G article status - This means any article that generates new editing should be delisted. If the article was stable when it was reviewed, then it was stable. There is no condition of a continuous state of stability to retain its status or we would be doing massive reevaluations of all G articles. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And why not? Besides, if you would have a look at the talk page and edit history, you would see that it's not simply a case of "new editing", but rather an ongoing dispute regarding neutral POV, with accompanying edit-warring. I'm guessing that such problems are why WP:GAR exists in the first place. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Barbara (WVS) The reassessment page says that you should use the process "when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria". The criteria linked does include 'stable'. This indicates to me that GA's should at the very least not have ongoing content disputes, even if the dispute happens after the review. While I agree that simple content changes should not generate a review (which would at the very least be highly impractical), edit warring and long term content disputes violate Criteria 5. If what you say is common practice, perhaps we should discuss updating Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-8. In any case, other users have raised other issues with retaining it as a GA. InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist.

There are a few issues with this article that indicate it might not fulfill the GA Criteria 2B (reliable sources), :

1. Ref 15 is dead and cannot be verified.
2. External link to an anonymous blog.
3. Ref #17 is to a charity that has a a 1-star rating from Charity Navigator and is not very highly-regarded (see Chicago Tribune, Charity Watch - which gives the American Institute for Cancer Research a grade of F - I am not sure that this organizations' publications should be regarded as reliable sources or that the group itself should be cited within the article's text as an expert-organization.

Fails GA Criteria 1A & 1B regarding prose & MOS guidelines.

1. There is a POV-statement in the lead section that "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals,[1][2] though several have noted that eating unprocessed foods as this diet recommends may have health benefits.[2][3] [<-bolding mine] Several? Which "several", how many "several"?...apparently 2. And is this statement supported within the main text? Sure doesn't seem so, Ref #3 is repeated but I fail to see this "several" that the lead mentions.
2. There is a single section called "Adverse effects" which implies by omission that the rest of the article is about the good effects but reading through the rest of the article the claimed good effects are just that - unsupported assertions, seems to me the adverse effects section could almost be the entire article.
3. Agree with the statement by Alexbrn about how the article mixes up fad diet claims in with legitimate research - the article needs to undergo a somewhat-ruthless re-write to deal with these issues.

The "Historical uses" section fails or, at least gives the appearance of failing 1A, 1B and 2B.

1. It makes several vague statements about the usage of this diet in the past using words like "historically" and "years ago" but the word-choices are somewhat vague and the sourcing for these statements is also somewhat lacking - it is possible that the information is contained in Ref #20 & #21 back these statements up. If this is so, including refquotes from the sources that are within the paragraph would go a long way towards assuaging any doubts. Shearonink (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]