Talk:Salvia divinorum/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Introduction could be longer, but it is three paragraphs which is still a pretty good length (WP:LEAD).

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
~~Many of the older links are dead, see here~~.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm going to put this article on hold, and see if someone fixes it. Otherwise I will see what I can do about fixing the dead links. If it is not fixed within seven days it will be delisted and reassessed as B-class. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1A (introduction): I browsed down the list of sections on the article, and most of them seemed to be covered (in suitably summarized form) in the introduction. I suppose there should be something about the 2005-present legal/political topics.

2A (dead links): Most of the dead links seem to be news articles. Are they from the "News references" section (as opposed to footnoted references)? If so, I think they can just be deleted. Kingdon (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that. If you can attempt to fix what works (I tried the archive url for two of them and one was good and the other was broken), and delete the ones that don't technically need a url, I can pass this one. The intro is not a big deal, just my opinion. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, at least some of them are footnoted (and are, at least in some cases, there for a hard-to-avoid reason: to illustrate what the news media was saying). I've made a pass through them, ignoring the ones which aren't really broken and fixing or adding {{dead link}} to the others. Maybe someone who understands WebCite (which is used extensively here), or who has a bit more time than I do, can help out as well. Kingdon (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go add something to the introduction, but I see it already has "While not currently regulated by USA federal drug laws, several states have passed laws criminalizing the substance and the DEA has listed Salvia as a "drug of concern"" which actually might be a pretty good summary. So I guess I'll leave improving that to someone else as well (if anyone wants to do anything with it). Kingdon (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a lot of the broken links. Of the three that are left, one is just a external link, and the other two are news sources which technically don't need links, so I left them as is. This is a massive article, I might suggest a content fork, but that is another discussion. Article kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]