Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Convention on Psychotropic Substances

Re-nom. Broken links have been fixed, references have been converted to endnotes, and more content about meth has been added. The treaty text itself has been wikisourced. (Thank you, Smoddy, for your help!) Remember me 12:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As Remember me says, I fixed up the footnotes in this article. I think it is well written, has good images, and is very well referenced *wipes sweat from brow*. Therefore, I support. smoddy 13:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but...well...the writing is a little dry, and full of extremely long chemical names. A tough read, especially for a generalist. Maybe we could move the sections on adoption and controversy up above the specific drug sections, to draw people in? Meelar (talk) 20:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • That suggestion has been implemented. Philadelphia, LA 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Object The Convention is an international agreement but there is no discussion of the politics surrounding its creation or continuing existence. The article has relatively too much focus on individual substances whilst ignoring the real controversy regarding the legalisation of some drugs. The Convention is regarded as one reason why some countries find it difficult to adopt a more liberal approach to drug use. In short, the article needs to take a more strategic perspective on the issues. JPF 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support This concern has been adequately addressed.   JPF 16:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • A lot of political background has been added. 205.217.105.2 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, This one should have made it in already. Let´s try to get it right this time.Tparker393 09:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, my objections from last time still have not been met. It still concentrates way too heavily on psychotropics, and not enough on stimulants. It still needs more balancing, and at least 1 image of a stimulant (no Ecstacy does not count). But it is looking better. Support looks much better now.  ALKIVAR™ 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pics of a meth lab, amphetamines, and crystal meth have been added. In addition, text has been added explaining stimulants' role as an impetus for the treaty's creation; the section on the recent rise of stimulants has been expanded; and there is substantial coverage of specific stimulants (cathinone and methcathinone) that were placed under international control after 1971 through the Scheduling process. Tangible 13:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The orignial nomination is here.—Theo (Talk) 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My previous concerns have been addressed. This is much improved.—Theo (Talk) 08:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. strikes me as UN glorification, despite the limp "controversy" section. to be NPOV, i believe it should approach the subject with far less acceptance of the proposition that the UN (or anybody, for that matter) can tell me, a peaceful adult, what i can put in my body, or even have access too. sounds like it was written by a UN panel, from what i saw. didn't read every word though. SaltyPig 14:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The controversy section has been expanded to include a discussion of proposed denunciation. Joo-joo eyeball 17:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is important information and as a featured article it will clearly raise awareness. --Howrealisreal 20:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)