Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salvia divinorum/archive1


 * 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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Salvia divinorum
I'm nominating this article because it's a very well-written and comprehensive article about a very esoteric drug that's entering the public eye. (Salvia is being considered for CSA scheduling; shows and articles about salvia have been popping up in the media more frequently in the last few months.) It's well-referenced and has undergone 2 peer reviews (which were not productive since nobody besides automatons left any criticisms). Jolb 20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. [For the sake of full disclosure, I should mention that I have worked on this article in the past.] My objections are:
 * The first and last paragraphs of the section "Legal status" are unreferenced and contain weasel terms (e.g. "some politicians...").
 * ✅. Took care of that. That was a pretty glaring problem with the page, thank you. Jolb 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article should have separate "Chemistry" and "Pharmacology" sections. In the Pharmacology section, more on CNS effects of stimulating κ-opioid receptors (Why do κ-opioid receptor agonists have hallucinogenic effects?)
 * Although not contingent to my support, I'd like to see more about the ethnobotany of S. divinorum (see the papers written by Valdés, particularly "Ethnopharmacology of ska Mariá Pastora").
 * An "External links" section containing links to useful, broad resources for readers (e.g. Erowid).
 * External links are quite controversial, ESPECIALLY erowid. Erowid is a sore spot for many wikipedians since it's not one central body of work, it's a collection of different works gathered from some really good scientific sources and some really terrible, unreliable stuff. Very little of the good work on there can't be found on more reputable sites (reputable in that they don't have instructions for cooking meth) like Google Scholar or Pubmed. So I don't think linking to Erowid is a good idea for a featured article. Also, I don't feel we absolutely need an external links section since a ton of information is already linked in our references, but a few external links (under 10) might be nice. Jolb 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Criterion 1a: I find myself tripping over the prose at times. Examples:
 * "Contrasting studies suggests no overall consensus so far with regard to the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum on mood."
 * "The relatively recent emergence of Salvia divinorum in modern Western culture in comparison to its long continuing traditions of indigenous use elsewhere contrasts widely differing attitudes on the subject."
 * "News media has taken an escalating interest in Salvia divinorum - particularly in the United States - where an increasing number of newspaper reports have been published and television news stories broadcast."
 * ✅. I fixed all the errors you pointed out and I will correct any other awkward grammar I find.Jolb 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't let the number of objections put forward by me put you off. I have worked on this article and am familiar with the subject so I'm being picky. It's a very good article (excellently referenced) and I think it will become Featured without too much work. Hope this helps. --Oldak Quill 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.