Talk:Cicuta/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I gave the article a once-over copyedit, and added a bunch of links. Please review the changes and revert back if you don't agree with them or if I've messed up the meaning of anything. I think the article looks pretty good, but I have some comments, quibbles and suggestions below. Sasata (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

lead description
 * suggested wikilinks: poisonous plants
 * Done
 * capitalization of common names is inconsistent throughout article
 * Done
 * wlink/define mottled
 * Done
 * is there a type species for the genus?
 * Yes, added
 * "The alternate leaves are..." does "alternate" have a specific meaning in botany
 * Yes, linked it, i.e. see picture
 * inconsistent Brit/Am. Eng. spelling usage (eg., characterized, centimetres)
 * Forced convert template to use US english
 * I would suggest leaving the first use of a unit in full, and then making the convert template abbreviate all instances after that, but it's your call. Sasata (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

taxonomy
 * metric & imperial conversions not used consistently
 * used convert template throughout
 * any possibility to add a photo of a full-sized plant?
 * The ones on commons aren't great or are not identified correctly, but added one of virosa, I'm not in the right place of the world to go and get a better one :)
 * link conium
 * Linked
 * "Carl Linnaeus formally described three species in 1753." what publication? Maybe it's available on Google Books and the article could link to the original Latin description?
 * Yes, first publishished in Species plantarum, cited it
 * link varieties
 * Linked, added the official varieties

Toxicity
 * wlink/define unsaturated; structurally
 * Linked
 * "Its primary toxic effect is to act as a non-competitive gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antagonist in the central nervous system resulting in neuronal depolarization." Maybe this sentence could be expanded to two or three and explained in more layman's terms; even with the current links, it would be pretty tough going for the average reader
 * Expanded pharmacology a bit
 * "Cicutoxin is highly poisonous" Is it possible to give any data to substantiate this? Maybe an LD50 in mice with comparison to some other more well-known poisons?
 * Added LD50, The only LD50 for cicutoxin is in mice at 48.3 mg/kg IP, there are 3 other vaules (2 in cats and one in a frog), although they are LDLo values (checked both Sax and RTECS); compared with potassium cyanide at 5.9 mg/kg IP in mice and arsenic at 46.2 mg/kg IP, while sarin is 0.283 mg/kg IP in mice.
 * "Poisoning in livestock is common and typically occurs following ingestion of roots of the plant. " How would this happen, do cows dig up the roots?
 * They typically pull the plant out of the ground, expanded
 * I'd highly suggest making the prose in the Symptoms and Diagnosis and treatment sections a little more newbie-friendly, many of the words used are medically technical and will be uncommon to the average reader. Maybe describe some of the terms in plain language, but pipe links back to the technical term.
 * changed symptoms to be more friendly (except the ECG changes which are kinda impossible to do)
 * "The anticonvulsant phenytoin is not recommended in water hemlock poisoning as it has not been shown to be effective for seizure control following this poisoning." slightly clunky repetition of poisoning
 * removed one poisoning


 * any phylogenetic analysis done on this genus?
 * a little, added some info but I'm no botanist/phylogeneticist(is that a word?) so may not have done justice to the cited paper

The changes look great, I'm happy to promote the article now. Nice work! Sasata (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is clear and concise; article complies with MOS.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
 * Sources are reliable; article is well-cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all the important aspects of the genus.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images have appropriate free use licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: