This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of poison article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
History of poison was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that poison, over its 6500-year history, has been used for both great progression in medicine and as a hugely popular method of assassination?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Seems to be a clear view towards delisting: in addition to concerns raised here, does not meet criterion 2b, and satisfies criterion 3 (and arguably criterion 1) for a quickfail.UndercoverClassicistT·C13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an old GA that hasn't stood the test of time, unfortunately. Lead is covered in {{cn}} tags, eleven citations to a somewhat academic-looking early 2000s webpage, another three to a blatantly non-MEDRS source. I want to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, so i'll say upfront that I think this would be a quickfail at GAN and as such should be speedily delisted and brought back to GAN when it's undergone the necessary work. I'd be happy to assist in that however possible, but I don't think GAR's the right venue. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ancient poisons", where most of the article historic información is sourced from, has an extensive bibliography that could be of use. The tags in the lead could certainly be addressed with some of those sources; if I weren't going on break I would step up to take a stab at it but the proposed route is probably better given the age of the nomination. Reconrabbit16:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.