Talk:LSD/GA1

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

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and cannot be listed in its present state. First, it needs a thorough copy edit, by someone with good grammar skills, and a good knowledge of the manual of style. While I will fix 'little things' in grammar and spelling when I do GA reviews, I should not have to make that many, and I've already found myself making numerous copyedits, which is the first red flag for GA.

Second, the article does not meet the wikipedia medical manual of style, particularly with respect to drug-related articles. For starters here, move pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics into main sections, not in 'effects'. Also, why is 'spiritual' in the effects section; while it might be interesting from a historical perspective, scientifically, I think it's very difficult to quantify anything "spiritual" as an "effect". I would actually remove these sub-sub-sections from the psychological effects section anyway -- an overuse of sub-sub-sections and the like is a sign that an article is in need of improvement, as it shows inexperienced editors quickly adding thoughts without taking the time to really organize it into the article's writing itself.

There are some sections that are missing. 'Mechanism of action' is one.

The 'legal status' section needs some serious work. For starters, the "citations needed" tag is a red flag for GAs. All such tags must be removed prior to GA status. The section is also poorly organized. There is a first subsection for the US, then it goes into Canada, Hong Kong (which isn't even a country), and the UK, then back to not one, but two more sections on the US? Also, what about other countries in Europe? What about South America? Africa? The rest of Asia? Australia? It fails to cover a broad international perspective.

The 'see also' section could use some pruning and reorganization. Links to other articles that are already mentioned in the text should not be listed in 'see also'.

The references section needs some work. All citations should be formatted with full citation information (author, title, date, publisher, date of URL retrieval), and not just contain a link alone. Several of the citations may not meet WP:RS; for example, reference #9 is attributed to Albert Hoffman, but the link goes to a nondescript website and it's not very clear that the text provided on that website is actually Albert Hoffman's work. Also, references such as number 21, which go to erowid.org, are unacceptable. Erowid.org is a drug-subculture fansite, and not a suitable academic or scientific reference. While some of the material on that site does appear to be citing legitimate scientific and medical references, it is a tertiary reference; therefore, the primary reference should be cited preferentially.

Sorry folks. But a good amount of work is still required prior to GA status. Unfortunately, the article is only C-class, at best. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)