Talk:Juicing/Archive 1

Unfortunately, as with most information related to fad dieting, a general lack of citable information exists.

Someone with more patience than me will need to adopt this page.

--Macogle (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement requests

Page requests improvement, yet when people post information it gets deleted. Don't see much progress happening that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.16.123 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs information from reliable sources. Unsourced opinions and "facts" sourced to the editor's own blog do not help. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean sourced to an article that discussed masticating juicers vs centrifugal juicers. Which didn't seem any less credible than the first reference source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.16.123 (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean your blog is not a reliable source. If you would like to demonstrate that your blog is a reliable source, we can discuss that. If you feel there are other sources used in the article that are not reliable, we can discuss that as well. They are not related questions. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juicing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901222000/http://www.current.com.au/2011/11/29/article/Give-it-some-juice-Breville-doubles-juicer-sales-following-health-doco/XHZUNCOYXV.html to http://www.current.com.au/2011/11/29/article/Give-it-some-juice-Breville-doubles-juicer-sales-following-health-doco/XHZUNCOYXV.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I am new to editing and the Wikipedia community. As I was reading the article I thought of contributing this information: Suggested Additions: Specific juices and their benefits. I.Blood Pressure Depression - Papaya Juice II. Metabolic disorders & Cardiovascular Diseases- Peach and Plum Juice III. Benefits of Citrus Grapefruit and Orange Juice

Citations to be included: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5372571/ Noratto G., Martino H., Simbo S., Byrne D., Mertens-Talcott S.U. Consumption of polyphenol-rich peach and plum juice prevents risk factors for obesity-related metabolic disorders and cardiovascular disease in Zucker rats. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2015;26:633–641. doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2014.12.014

Cancalon P.F., King D. Health benefits of polyphenol-rich orange and grapefruit juices. XII Int. Citrus Congr. Int. Soc. Citric. 2015;1065:727–734.

Eno A.E., Owo O.I., Itam E.H., Konya R.S. Blood pressure depression by the fruit juice of Carica papaya L. in renal and DOCA-induced hypertension in the rat. Phytother. Res. 2000;14:235–239. doi: 10.1002/1099-1573(200006)14:4<235::AID-PTR574>3.0.CO;2-G.

What do you think? MAWebsterU (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbi's Peer Review

This article needs more information from reliable sources in the "Overview" section. Expand on the methods section, masticating, centrifugal, and triturating. The last two methods do not contain any indication of reference or verification of sources. Add sources and more description. The 'Health Effects' section is well-organized and contains a good amount of information, with references to sources. More information can be added about the societies, such as the American Cancer Society, and where the quotation came from, add more background information. Overall the article is informational, but broad. Aborkowski45 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Health Effects" reads like a blog article

Although I happen agree with the viewpoint of "Health Effects," it clearly is biased, and even appears to have a view to persuade the reader rather than merely enlarge upon the topic in a purely informative (viz, encyclopaedic) way. I would expect this of a blog, not a reference work. 2600:1:C357:CF4:CE2D:5013:7021:9B2 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]