Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salvia divinorum/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:13, 30 March 2010 [1].
Salvia divinorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Surachit (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/Salvia divinorum/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Salvia divinorum/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
Well written and well sourced, and I think it fits all other FAC criteria -Surachit (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No indication that the nom has consulted major contributors , also not well written. I've just skimmed, but several issues
- short sentences and paragraphs make for choppy reading, almost every para seems to have its own subheading (or sub-sub heading)
- Needs a good copy edit - mixture of AE and BE spelling (meter/centimetre) meter in lead not converted, Salvia incorrectly bolded, but not italicised, salvinorin A incorrectly bolded
- two of the four paras of the lead deal with legality yet several of the main sections of the article are ignored (eg "Ingestion", "Chemistry")
- Us-centric The fourth para of the lead and most of "Controversy" seem to be fixated on the US.
- legal status in US given in detail, but no mention of its status in its native land - in fact Mexico is only mentioned in the context of where the plant grows
- Overlinking - Oaxaca is linked at least three times
- Oppose Sasata (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with the concerns noted above and would add:[reply]
- doesn't quite meet criteria 1b and 1c. Where's the phylogenetics? Why isn't the recent review article pmid 18720668 used as a source in the legality section? There are other recent scholarly articles missing as sources.
- Some recent review articles don't seem to be used as much as they could/should. I only noticed one citation each for the reviews by Babu (2008, pmid:18259963) and Grundmann (2007, pmid:17628834) for example
- some sources are of questionable reliability (thinking particularly of the several Erowid cites)
- agree with the US-centrism of the article
- it's not terribly far off the mark, but could use some time at peer review. Ping me if you send it there and I'll be glad to help out.
- Oppose I've checked the history and the nominator doesn't seem to be the major contributor to this page. User:SallyScot seems to be more involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.