Talk:Coffee

This article used to be a good article. It was promoted on 23 February 2008 and demoted on 4 March 2010. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Untitled

As I understand it is standard to speak of one instead of we. There is not a lot of information given either. --Cethegus 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the wes should be replaced by the passive. --Eptalon 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article voting

I believe that this article in now ready for voting for GA status. Does anyone else here agree with me about this? Razorflame 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Solvation

Solvation is the scientific word for dissolving something, solution is not. See en:solvation. Solution is the end result of solvation/dissolution. Piping "dissolve" to "solution" is like piping "melting" to "water". A link shouldn't be changed just to avoid having a redlink when the original word is more accurate than the change. Plus, I think we should encourage the creation of solvation. · Tygrrr... 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The VGA/GA processes should encourage a search to find variants to fill redlinks (City of New York -> New York City for example) but there can never be a reason to fill in a redlink with a close matches as here. --Bärliner 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I did not know the word solvation. (My word, I don't know the language well enough.) - As dissolve existed the red link to solvation made no good sense either. --Cethegus (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All drugs addictive

I am changing the statement about all drugs being addictive. As per this source: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/are-all-drugs-addictive , some drugs are not addictive, such as marijuana. Kansan (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Very poor English

This article is terribly written. The information is fine, but spelling, grammar, choice of words, etc. Are embarrassing Karnotorum (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to me to merit such a sweeping condemnation. Why not be more specific? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Rahmajeng Rifati Shafyra

These recent changes by this user were reverted 2 times as being promotional (by Operator873) and not simple (by me). I would like to have others to review these changes. MathXplore (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)