Wikipedia:Featured article review/LSD/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 06:27, 29 January 2007.

LSD

Review commentary

LSD was a "brilliant prose" promotion - no original author. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. Sandy (Talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LSD needs review for many reasons.

It has a massive external link farm that needs pruning (see WP:EL and WP:NOT); See also needs pruning as well, with relevant entries incorporated into the text, and articles that are already in the text deleted from See also.
Many of the References (Footnotes) are not properly formatted, some are missing completely, some are missing basic info, some are missing last access date, and journal-published articles should have PMIDs. There are numerous citation needed tags, and many more that could be added - the article has many facts which are not cited.
The article is replete with uncited text and weasle words (example: Debate continues over the nature and causes of chronic flashbacks. Some say HPPD is a manifestation of post-traumatic stress disorder, not related to the direct action of LSD on brain chemistry, and vary according to the susceptibility of the individual to the disorder. Many emotionally intense experiences can lead to flashbacks when a person is reminded acutely of the original experience. However, not all published case reports of chronic flashbacks appear to describe an anxious hyper-vigilant state reminiscent of post-traumatic stress disorder.) Sandy (Talk) 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Move to FARC. KazakhPol 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  KazahkPol, we have at least a two-week review period before we move to FARC - hopefully problems will be addressed in that time. Then we have at least another two weeks in FARC, when people can vote to Keep or Remove, and improvements can still happen. Sandy (Talk) 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was, coincidentally, about to nominate this very article for review. My main reason was that references are skimpy: many statements of fact are made without one. --Oldak Quill 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, many edits, little improvement since nom (diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns citations (1c), formatting (2), POV (1d). Marskell 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I cleaned up what I can in the article structure, but the article remains massively undercited and weasly, with no one apparently willing to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I did some checks of the references and it was hit and miss... the one for the other names LSD is known as didn't confirm many of the ones our article claims. Chunks of US government text are used but not attributed, that's possibly plagiarism. Also many paragraphs full of non-trivial claims are not cited at all. Article really isn't that bad but it needs some TLC to meet modern FA standards. --W.marsh 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Sandy. Pity—it's quite well written. Tony 14:16, 27 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.