Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psychoactive drug/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 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Psychoactive drug

previous FAC

This page was nominated once before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psychoactive drug/archive1. There was no mention of that FA review on the talk page, so I was not privy to its existence before nominating the article. However, I still think this article should be FA reviewed because it's very high in quality, and I and the other editors cannot see where more work should be done. We'd appreciate any and all comments. Jolb 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed - you're right, it is in better shape than many articles with a short or no run-in but there's plenty of stuff to do including but not limited to: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there should be no cite needed tags - all should be reffed.

Drugs as status symbols is very stubby -also need refs for all points. Another example is in modern secondary schools, where teenagers often boast about their drug use, be it real or not. -should be expanded and rewritten - not encyclopedic sounding.

I'm not a fan of see also sections. Most of these should be able to be worked into texts, not listed as isolated links at the bottom. Msny are in the text already in which case they can be removed.

The article presumes all centrally acting drugs are psychoactive which I'm not sure is the correct definition. I'll check later.

The Venn diagram looks pretty but I have never seen it before and seems to make alot of arbitrary assumptions - why do antidepressants overlap with antipsychotics?? Cannabis is a propsychotic agent so why does it overlap into pink antipsychotic circle. I'd be inclined to dump the diagram but I'll see what others saycheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These things are addressed on the talk page of the article, but I'll briefly go over them here. The "antipsychotic" circle encompasses all drugs that tend to alleviate obsessive-compulsive thought patterns, including anxiety and depression. Only those drugs which are not overlapping another circle are pure/true "antipsychotics". As for cannabis, its primary constituents are THC (the "propsychotic") and CBD (an "antipsychotic"). It is the CBD content which pushes it up towards the antipsychotic circle. Perhaps it is up too high? This is adjustable. The diagram has been in the article for the past couple years (evolving and improving), has received numerous accolades and almost made it as a featured picture, so I wouldn't be so quick to "dump" it. --Thoric 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some of the changes you asked. I removed the citation needed, and I reworded the unencyclopedic wording in the "Drugs as status symbols" section. That section is still stubby, however... should it be merged into another section? Jolb 05:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there must be mention of the status of psychoactive drug use from ancient Greek and shamanic cultures right through up to the present day - it should be much bigger. religiosity aside what we're talking about is views on drug use, which, come to think of it, would be a better name for a section.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..actually I'd make it a subsection of history

another thing which should be under history is a more comprehensive mention of historical measures of prohibition -currently in Legality and ethics

I'd summarise salient points of Arguments for and against drug prohibition and place as a 3-4 paragraph subsection of Legality and ethics

contact high looks really trivial and I wouldn't bother mentioning as a link

Comment. ... There was no mention of that FA review on the talk page, ... I just checked the articlehistory, and the previous fac is there as it should be. I do wish when editors move the old FAC to the new FAC[1] they would remember to update the articlehistory link[2] and the archive link.[3] Checking "what links here"[4] when making any article move is always good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Venn diagram under "Subjective and behavioral effects" is very inaccurate. MDMA is an antipsychotic? Psilocybin is a stimulant? No! You can tell it's a bogus classification because there is no way for a substance to belong to two opposite categories without belonging to at least a third. Someone obviously spent a lot of time on it, but it must go. BenB4 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which psychoactive drug cannot be placed on a spectrum of stimulant-depressant or hallucinogen-antipsychotic? Psilocybin most definitely is a stimulant and a hallucinogen. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. --Thoric 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refraining from personal attacks. I have shown several obvious problems with the chart at Talk:Psychoactive drug#Diagram disputed -- the most glaring of which is that alcohol is not categorized as a stimulant as well as a depressant -- and I will not support this nomination until all of those problems are resolved. The diagram may be salvageable, but I doubt it. I recommend removing it, or perhaps moving it to a new article such as Classification of psychoactive drugs where its nuances and deficiencies can be explained in detail, and the other classifications which have been suggested in Talk:Psychoactive drug can also be included. BenB4 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you wanted to keep the discussion to the talk page? BTW, alcohol is not a stimulant. --Thoric 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated there, peer-reviewed medical publications say it is, as does Effects of alcohol on the body#Moderate doses. BenB4 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A lot of one- or two-sentence sections, lists, and a dubious chart. (Is there a reference for the classification on the chart of atomoxetine and THC)? There is very little content here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of one- or two-sentence sections? The shortest section has three sentences. I also find it strange that the article received GA status with "very little content here." Jolb 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, GAs can be reviewed by one person only so the process is far less rigorous than here. Also, there is a significant difference in how prose and style is graded.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: disputed, laundry, and lack of comprehensiveness. Spamsara 11:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article seems largely incomplete. Many sections are very short (1-3 sentences). I don't understand the purpose of the 'drugs as status symbols' section -- seems to me like it's content could go with either the 'recreational drugs' or 'ritual & spiritual use' sections. I also found several spelling/grammatical errors, some of which I fixed, but a good thorough copyedit would help this article a lot.

The Venn diagram seems mostly accurate, although there are a few issues that should be addressed Why is alcohol only on the depressant side? it should be a bit more in the middle, between stimulants and depressants. There are probably others, but this one is the most obvious. I recall seeing a similar Venn diagram published in the scientific literature before, so it's not just pulled out of thin air, and does make sense. It's unclear what the source(s) used for creating this Venn diagram are, and that should be clearly evident. If it's been part of the wiki article for several years now, and 'evolved' over time, then there's a good chance that it is now original research, and should be removed and replaced with a diagram referenced from a reliable source. Dr. Cash 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.