Talk:Alexander Shulgin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Alexander Shulgin has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

For the sake of completeness, it would be good if this article mentioned the 1994 DEA raid on Shulgin's laboratory Moe Aboulkheir 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also a mention or brief explanation of the type of DEA license he possessed which allowed him to carry out his quasi-clandestine syntheses would be good too. Morphine 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. now it does. --Heah ^talk 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Zectran, the first biodegradable pesticide according to this article, isn't even a proper stub. Could we either get rid of the link or get someone to explain what Zectran is? (I for one am quite interested.) SubcomOvashins (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological errors

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I have passed this article, as I feel it meets the GA criteria. I think it's overall very well-written (with a few minor issues that were easier to fix myself), reasonably complete (covers the major & significant topics), and accurate. The material probably needs a few more references before being considered for WP:FA status, since everything is cited by only four citations. But the overall references meet the standards of reliability. I do have a minor concern regarding the use of the erowid.org reference, since that site seems to be more concerned with the illegal use of drugs than an actual scientific or valid media site (it's bordering on a blog, IMHO). But Google is unable to does not come up with any other references for the drug raid, and I won't let my personal thoughts get in the way of the GA review. It is questionable, however, whether this would stand up to the scrutiny of the FA nomination process.

Anyway, overall good job! Keep it up! Dr. Cash 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shulgin.jpg

Image:Shulgin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable publications

This section is hard too read. No links to the fulltexts. It would be better to write what he was working on and then add the reference for the article. Any other ideas? -- Panoramix303 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I could talk someone into updating this to reflect on his recent heart surgery?