Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salvia divinorum/archive2

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]

Nominator(s): Surachit (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.