User talk:Jakexx360/sandbox

Overall, the article (focusing on primarily the history section) is written well. The author has done a good job at maintaining a neutral voice on a confrontational topic. The Early Psychedelic Therapy section could be expanded upon, and I also think that the use of psychedelics all throughout history in groups such as native american tribes could be discussed more. I think that the article could be improved by including a section that talks briefly about the science of psychedelic therapy with links to the main pages for the different psychedelics (assuming the main pages go further in depth on this). For example, the structure and actual neurological function of LSD could be described briefly and this information seems very relevant. Also, is marijuana considered a psychedelic? If it falls under this category, I think it is necessary to comment on the recent resurgence in marijuana therapy and research.

Teeconway11 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The new organizational structure of the article makes a lot more sense. The separation into History and Applications is good, but some of the early 21st century history could go in applications, since it isn't quite "history" yet I think. Also I think citing individual studies is a bit iffy, especially for medical topics, and you might want to check the exact guidelines on that. There are also a few pieces of information that aren't sourced (like the end of the first History paragraph, the part on the 1980s worldwide ending of research on these substances, and the end of the first paragraph in the Applications section)

FricativeMelon (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)