Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cannabis rescheduling in the United States/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:35, 6 May 2007.

---

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States

Review commentary

Messages left at Rad Racer, Pharmacology, and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is POV. It is written from a perspective supporting rescheduling this drug of abuse. It does not contain views of those who support the present regimen. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and it is incomplete and out-of-date. It has a number of unsourced assertions and inaccuracies. Argos'Dad 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article contains a section on Arguments against rescheduling, seems encyclopedic in tone and reasonably well sourced. Some info seems a bit out of date (article was featured over two years ago), but how is this POV? Gimmetrow 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Lead needs attention per WP:LEAD. First section, right out of the gate has an unencyclopedic heading (background), is listy, and relies on a long quote, which is uncited by the way. Section headings need WP:MSH attention. All websources need publisher and last access date. Footnotes are completely unformatted. References are out of control; are they all used as sources, or should some of them be Further reading? Mixed formatting styles; some are imbedded inline, others use cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Most citations are inline links, which is not surprising for a 2-year old FA. The citation format and MoS issues can be handled. From a quick sampling, it appears a good number of the inline links correspond to something listed in References, although many of the actual links are now broken (eg, http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/ which is the last reference). The cite.php footnotes are mostly in one section expanded some time after FA promotion. Gimmetrow 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you thinking of trying to save this one? If so, and if no one else does it, I can eventually work on ref cleanup, but I wonder who will do the rest (don't like to work on refs if other problems aren't addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d) and referencing (1c). Marskell 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove— lead is too short and there appear to be othe minor formatting glitches, the POV tag is still in place, and the footnotes are lacking and not formatted properly. Still needs significant work. — Deckiller 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove for reasons cited above. Argos'Dad 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Lead is expanded. Nominator has not identified any POV issues. The prose is generally good and the article has 50-some citations. Citation format is a minor issue. Gimmetrow 00:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lead has been cleaned up, and there does not appear to be a significant bias (despite claims otherwise) -- keep in mind, this article is about a viewpoint, and will necessarily attract POV-pushing by both sides. Cleaning up the references isn't a big deal, and it could easily be cleaned up without yanking FAC status. /Blaxthos 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove for reasons cited above. Elmang
• Comment tending toward keep. Regarding (1d), this was nominated for alleged POV issues, but the nominator took three weeks to provide any examples, and the examples eventually provided were weak, fairly easy to adjust, and came from paragraphs added after the article was featured. As for (1c), citations could be formatted more in line with contemporary practice, but the article is pretty well-referenced as it stands. The bibliographic information is given in the references section for embedded URLs, as Wikipedia:Embedded citations and WP:CITE requires. Gimmetrow 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment still supporting removal--this article is POV (Blaxthos says, because the POV is endemic to the topic), it is unstable and would not pass muster as a FA if it were nominated today; why should it remain an FA when it is not among "the best articles in Wikipedia?" Argos'Dad 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is one of the most stable articles out there - about 120 edits in two years is extremly low for any article, let alone an allegedly POV article on a controversial topic. I'm not convinced this article couldn't pass a FAC today. Gimmetrow 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—stability is the worst criterion (and rarely implemented unless there is a serous edit war), so I don't think it's necessary to dock an article for that. Otherwise, 95 percent of FARs and FACs would fail (nobody waits 3 weeks to nominate an article). With that said, my remove vote is leaning toward keep; there are still some issues with prose (listing issues and redundancies), and some words that should be avoided ("claim", etc.) should not be in an article that has POV claims. — Deckiller 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I still don't see how there is blatant POV beyond what one would expect from an article about a particular POV. I won't go so far as to say the FAR is spurious, but given the massive stability of the article from the bestowment of FA until now, the lack of examples of POV (that weren't there when the original nomination was approved), I really think this is more a case of some editors not agreeing with the position of the content of the article instead of a true situation where a featured article has deteriorated to such a point that it no longer meets FAR. I know I can be charged with not assuming good faith, however I suggest that, given the almost nonexistant changes from FA until now, there is a lack of good faith that the original FA candidacy was decided properly. I'm also confused about this editor's claim of instability, which makes me think there may be some underlying motives regarding the subject matter (instead of the quality of the article. /Blaxthos 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • On the contrary; I think "pot" should be legalized. The article still has quite some time before a keep or remove decision is made; we are just providing suggestions to improve the article further before that unspoken deadline. — Deckiller 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the comments by Argos'Dad. /Blaxthos 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

        My only concern in seeking this review, Blaxthos, is that the quality of this article is not up to the FA standards. I have, on the talk page, explained my reasoning for saying the article violates WP:NPOV. I find your insinuation of a lack of good faith on my part to be unfair and unsubstantiated and I ask that you to retract it. WP:AGF Especially in light of the fact that you admit that there is POV (but according to you an acceptable amount). I submit that the standards for a WP:FA are higher than that and this article needs to be improved or removed from FA status. Argos'Dad 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I will not retract said statement. You've made a spurious claim of instability (as noted by other editors), and the article hasn't changed much at all since the original FA was granted. It took three weeks to come up with weak claims of a POV, without recognizing (as others have) that this article is about a point of view. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think your comments regarding your position on the subject matter, your insertion of tags that are questionable (unreferenced tag regarding one entry (as noted by others)), and the relatively little change since original FA candidacy suggest more than just wanting to ensure this is the best wikipedia offers. I am, of course, not insinuating any malice and I certainly don't mean to be offensive. However, this article is about cannabis rescheduling, not the place to try and advocate (or argue against) rescheduling. If anything, there should be a sister article about not rescheduling cannabis in the united states instead of (admittedly) trying to push a POV here. I realize I may take some heat for standing up here, but I hope editors recognize that it's not a malicious charge, personal attack, or in any way defammatory towards the nominator -- I simply think that the evidence shows personal bias towards the subject instead of concern for the quality of the article. Again, no offense intended. /Blaxthos 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  You know what, after re-reading my comments, I just want to clarify... I don't think that you're intentionally doing anything underhanded or in bad faith, and for that I do retract said claim. However, I do stand by my position that perhaps your personal feelings towards the subject matter has contributed to your claims and actions. I hope this helps clarify what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. /Blaxthos 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  I accept your retraction in the spirit in which it was offered., /Blaxthos I want to make clear that my opinion on the topic of Rescheduling Cannabis in the United States is not an issue. I have specifically not made edits to the content of the article, because, frankly, I don't care about the subject. I do sincerely believe, having tried to shepherd some articles (that were objectively better written, more complete, less POV-laden) to FA status unsuccessfully that I am concerned that too many articles having achieved FA status are then able to languish (or retrogress). Perhaps that is not the case here, but I sincerely doubt this article would be granted anything about GA status at this point if it were new. That is my POV on this article. If I have been acting inappropriately or have not been cooperative by studying and editing this issue in more depth, I apologize. Argos'Dad 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  No need for you to apologize -- I, like you, have been careful to avoid editing the content or otherwise commenting on the topic of the article. I think we both agree that such opinions have no place in the discussion. My major concern is that there hasn't been significant change since the original FA status was granted, and that you implied otherwise (big red flag to me). Perhaps I was too quick to assume other motivations were in play, and for that I apologize -- such an article is a target for POV pushers from both sides (just as articles about abortion and other controverisal topics). I'm most inclined to assume good faith regarding the original determination of FA status (given the lack of change in the article in 2 yrs). I just don't see that this article has deteriorated below FA status since it was granted; if your point is that "too many articles have been achieved FA status", I think that nominating controversial articles that haven't changed significantly for FA review isn't the way to solve the problem. Of course, consensus can change and it's your right to request a review of such... I just see FAR as a mechanism to ensure that changed articles still comply with FA criteria, not to try and undo FA status to articles you don't think should have gotten it in the first place, especially considering your admission that, due to articles you tried to "shepherd" to FA and failed, you're now challenging articles that did pass (and an article that hasn't significantly changed since) -- probably not a WP:POINT, but it's certainly prudent to consider that motivation. /Blaxthos 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, ok. I can't (and shouldn't) speak for Argos'Dad though. — Deckiller 01:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. No one else did it, so I attempted to clean up the section headings per WP:MSH; perhaps someone can improve. Is anyone going to cite the long quote in the first section? If everything else can be ironed out, I can spend some time cleaning up references next week, but it's time I don't have to spend unless other things are going to be ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Status. Last call for work on this one... Marskell 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• The nominator has not responded with the alleged POV issues. This should be a keep. Gimmetrow 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Weblinks as footnotes with no formatting/attribution information is not minor. This must at least be done. Marskell 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe "minor" in this case meanse easily fixed -- I'll try to look into it within 7 days, if no one else has by then. Definitely should not be the sole basis for removing FA. /Blaxthos

• • I will take a look tonight (Friday) or tomorrow (Saturday), also clean up any footnote stuff still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • oops, sorry, I spoke before I took a look at the latest version :-) Those references really need to be cleaned up; there are so many of them that are incomplete that completing them will be time consuming. I can do some work, but someone else should pitch in. If regular editors aren't versed in supplying dates, authors, publishers etc. per WP:CITE/ES, they might want to use the cite templates.. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • More, oh, my - there's also some serious need for attention to wikilinking, for example Schedule I. This article still needs work - I'm late for an app't, but maybe some can ping Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) and get him on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: completely unformatted references are indeed a removal basis. We don't just throw in weblinks and call it our best work. We did that two and three years ago, and we've come along way since then. Basic formatting tasks have not been performed on this article and it will indeed be time-consuming. We can wait until after the weekend to see if work starts. Marskell 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: all statements are attributed, and no references are "completely" unformatted. The full bibliographic information is given in the references section as required by WP:CITE and 1c. 1c does not, at present, *require* more than this, so I'm not sure such a change is strictly needed. Second, this work probably would have been done already, if the alleged POV issues had been stated early on so their merit could be assessed. Instead, it took three weeks to get anything on that front. Although the specific issues were addressed immediately, this effectively lost 75% of the FARC time. The prose here is among the better-written I've seen at FARC, but unlike Emsworth's articles this one already has a citation density on par with 2007 standards. Gimmetrow 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Gimme, I'm perplexed. Almost all of the footnotes are indeed completely unformatted URLs. There are a dozen embedded links that have yet to be turned into footnotes. The reference formatting on this is not even close to current FA standards. And there are POV issues; the "Against" section is a large strawman. The article needs significant auditing.

But of course we can leave it open if people are willing to work. Marskell 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, that's the problem. There is no point working on citation details under a deadline when there are allegedly larger "POV" issues. However, if there were serious POV issues those should have been stated weeks ago when I first asked for them. None were provided until three weeks later. Since the nominator is no longer responding one must assume that the issues are resolved. On the citation issue, you are technically correct. WP:CITE, the guideline referenced by WIAFA 1c, does not discuss urls within ref tags. However, it does discuss urls within brackets. I am quite willing to convert all the refs to embedded urls, if that's what you want, in order to comply with the letter of WP:CITE. Gimmetrow 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As you know, FAR deadlines are amongst the most flexible deadlines around here. We've pushed three months with reviews that people have been willing to work on. By all means, we can have the three weeks back by leaving this open, if it will improve the article. Fixing formatting etc. and then moving on to POV is probably the best strategy. The prose on this is not among the better-written FARCs, IMO. But let's save that until the basics are done.

CITE "does not discuss urls within ref tags." Well, no it doesn't. But are you seriously suggesting that having a footnote reference that consists solely of a URL link is acceptable on an FA? OK, don't answer that. Let's have somebody format half-a-dozen, and then I'll format half-a-dozen, and then Sandy will, and then you will, and in a few days the notes and references will be presentable. It's not technical correctness. The spirit and letter of professionalism call for consistency in presentation and our FAs are supposed to be professional. Marskell 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be ideal if the style were consistent within the article. The irony here is that the inconsistency has come about from incomplete attempts to improve the article by coverting things to cite.php. On that point, the article was better off before it arrived at FAR. Sandy has already expressed a dislike to working on refs if other issues aren't addressed. Gimmetrow 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos may help with the wikilinking. I can format references if someone else will do the PDFs (and identify them); it's baseball season and I like to do that kind of busy work on my old laptop while the Sox are beating the Yankees, and the PDFs bomb out on my laptop. I agree with Gimme that the work wasn't worth doing if there were other issues, but if there are no other issues, I can plug away at fixing the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I may :) I'm working on it now, as well as some minor prose and MoS fixes, and formatting all refs as I go along. Would anyone object to the use of cite templates throughout? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best. I did find a couple of POVish statements, such as

"In 1972, the Commission released a report favoring decriminalization of marijuana. The Richard Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however."

"In 1994, the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131). The petition was officially dead."

"The disparate treatment of marijuana and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency."

Is there anything else I can do? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for doing all the ref conversion. Gimmetrow 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All hail Fvasconcellos :-) Thanks, Fv ! I went in to wikify some dates so date prefs will work, and found there is some weird (HTML?) error in the article. When you start at the bottom, trying to edit by section, you can't access the sections you need to edit ... maybe you can figure that out, Gimmetrow? If so, I'll continue going through. I found one wikilink missing, so still want to spend more time in there. Looks like another save by those horrid FAR regulars :-) SandyGeorgia 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome :) I noticed that, and had forgotten by the time I posted here... I can't figure out what it was; I hope it wasn't the whitespace I removed before and after sidebars? It appears Gimmetrow has fixed it. Sorry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't that. It was a problem with section headers inside templates. I've run into this a couple times now. Because of the order in which the mediawiki software processes things, certain items in templates (mainly ref tags and, in some circumstances, headers) do not work correctly. I wonder how long the article has been that way? Gimmetrow 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to FV, the article looks fine now in terms of MOS, but the POV/cite needed tags identified by Fv need to be addressed. Marskell's good at that sort of thing (did I say, "pass the buck"? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully versed in this topic — only marginally knowledgeable because of adherents in the TS community. I'm not entirely certain this article is up to date or accurate. I'm not saying it's not accurate; just that I can't really tell. Example:

... established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in the dopamine-producing areas of the brain.[25][7] Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana, showed that marijuana has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission ...

But, PMID 17291487, PMID 17251418, PMID 17250681, PMID 16760924 — that's only searching on the last six months in PubMed for cannabinoid and dopamine. I can't interpret this work, but I can't be certain the article is up to date or accurate — maybe someone else knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The text cited is the Herkenham study, which says "The presence of cannabinoid receptors in the ventromedial striatum suggests an association with dopamine circuits thought to mediate reward", but also says "cannabinoid receptors in the basal ganglia are not localized on dopamine neurons." This word "dopamine" is used only one other place in the article, in a way that seems unlikely to be relevant here. I suspect the appropriate thing to do is say this is Gettman's interpretation of the science. There used to be a statement in the article, also based on interpretations from Gettman's site, stating a "lack of receptors" in some area, with the implication that there were none. The actual study simply said a "paucity" of receptors, as in a small quantity, so there is a history of creative paraphrasing here. Gimmetrow 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*Applause* Thanks for digging in to it Fva. I'll try and pull out some prose structure and POV concerns over the next few days. Marskell 09:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some notes:

• Having a Background and a History section seems redundant. Also it feels odd to arrive at History at the end of the article.
• "The Food and Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of marijuana, and the existence of some heavy users, is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness." Strawman sentence.
• Too many large quotes in the Against section.
• Too many sentence initial "However"s. It's a stylistic concern, but it also underscores that a "yes, but" structure is often at work here. It's hard to put my finger on it, but I'm not entirely convinced of neutrality.
• Maybe too many lists. Marskell 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm still uneasy as well. I posted to the Medicine Project for an accuracy check, but no one has popped in. My only personal knowledge is with Marinol et al touted by some for use with TS, and I know a lot of what was thought to be true just a few years ago is getting debunkified. I'm not entirely comfortable here; sure wish we had informed medical input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd help further, but this is somewhat out of my league, and I'm going to be very busy off-wiki over the next few days. FWIW: I can't make up my mind on the neutrality of this article (or possible lack thereof), and, although I can't put my finger on anything specific (big help, huh?), it just seems somehow subpar when compared to more recent FAs; after reading it, I don't feel as if I gained much from the "experience" (no pun intended). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Remove—1d (inadequate lead), 1a (prose). The lead, which doesn't prepare us for the rest of the article and is too short, contains micro-problems too.
  • "The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision."—"views OF"; "what scientific evidence WOULD BE most relevant to A ..."
  • Another whacky preposition: "by petition with the Drug Enforcement Administration".
  • "the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I"—Clumsy possessive apostrophe; "placement" is clumsy, too. "cannabis' widespread use"—ouch.
  • "The Government"—it's Congress, is it? Tony 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took to detail all of that here you could have fixed minor grammatical issues. /Blaxthos 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony gives examples of problems throughout; just fixing those won't address the problems. There aren't enough hours in the day for him to correct all the prose problems on all the articles he reviews, which is why he gives samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Informative, well written, and well sourced. Just because it covers a particular viewpoint doesn't mean it's POV pushing. MoodyGroove 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Remove. I've finally found time to dig into some of the actual sources used and have found the following:

• In 1999, the IOM recommended that medical marijuana use be allowed for certain patients in the short term, and that preparations of isolated cannabinoids be developed as a safer alternative to smoked marijuana. The IOM also found that the gateway drug theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."

• Two big uncited statements here. Both can be found in the Executive summary. [1] The first statement simply does not reflect what is found in the report, which clearly makes recommendations for further study and clinical trials, and defines under which terms short-term use should be approved. The second says: Present data on drug use progression neither support nor refute the suggestion that medical availability would increase drug abuse. However, this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and it should not be a factor in the evaluation of the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids. The way these two sentences are strung together looks like synthesis, not supported by the report, which is not correctly cited. The IOM recommended, across the board, further study — this section doesn't read that way at all; in fact, it implies the IOM endorses the use of medical marijuana.

• So, I kept looking. There's an uncited quote in 2002 Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis petition. This section briefly cites one minor excerpt from a court case, but never discusses California's Compassionate Use Act or the context of the decision. This section basically presents Gettman's POV and none other.
• There are words to avoid and weasle words in the pro-rescheduling arguments, that aren't found in the anti-arguments:

• The National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, continued to publish literature contradicting this finding. For instance, NIDA claims the following in its youth publication The Science Behind Drug Abuse:[29] But, the NIDA data is not given or discussed.

• No, not comfortable with the neutrality of this article, and only a little bit of digging into only two sections at the bottom turns up issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing note: This has already gone an extra ten days. I am going to remove, as a substantial dig through refs and reorganization of POV appears in order. Marskell 07:31, 6 May 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.