There are two aspects of the article, Zefr and I cannot agree on:
Scientific consensus suggests that the primary mode of action of flavan-3-ols is via improving vascular function - that is stated in reference 13. They should therefore be included in the text at least as prominent as the effect on blood lipids.
Flavan-3-ols have been investigated in a large (n=20,000 subjects, 3.5 yr) clinical trial and shown to have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular-diseases. While this is primary research, it is a large study that provides considerably more evidence for a potential health effect than all other cited evidence as it uses hard endpoints. I therefore belief it has sufficient relevance to be at least mentioned.
Which color scheme is more accessible? Which color scheme balances accessibility and aesthetics?
The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. I have to open the full resolution to tell the difference between the colors and even then it can be a challenge for some. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. We also have issues with the TS color and the timeline background for red color blindness (demonstrated in the above RfC). On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below colors, which increases the contrast between the weather colors. Please place comments in the discussion section below.
As a compromise between keeping the old scale and improving for WP:ACCESS for color blind, I propose the following new scale. I would also like to make it very clear, Consensus was reached above to NOT have ANY links on colored backgrounds so the below colors only need to have AA contrast against black text. NoahTalk 22:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.