This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
The sources for this article do not seem to have/show the name of the person who is the source for the information in this article. If the name of the source is unknown, we have no way of knowing whether the person is a qualified expert i.e. an RS or not. As such, I think that the info in this article is Original Research, and is against the WP:NOR policy. If it cannot the established that the material is not OR, then the article should be deleted IMO. Thanks.MWℳ13:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is no longer the case, or perhaps never was the case, the person, or persons who create the wiki page do not need to use their name, even if they are deemed to be an expert, it would be considered original research by the rules of Wikipedia. The research needs to be NOT ORIGINAL, meaning siting their source, the source is clearly given, the Original Research Tag should be removed. IMO Thanks.--2602:306:CF5B:6100:C016:19EF:6947:D297 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Still Doc Ock[reply]