Talk:Medicinal plants/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will take up this review. I will spend 2-3 days to familiarise myself with the article, and then provide a review. --Tom (LT) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tom - how's it going? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, sorry, I am more busy than I anticipated. I will get around to reviewing this within the next week or two. Sorry for the delay. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I am concerned that a fair amount of the basic content in this article has been copied. I note that most of the content (57k) was uploaded in a single edit in 2013 - always a risk. I did a quick search for different phrases and found that there is quite a lot of similarity to this "International Journal of Phytotherapy" journal article dated 2012 titled "Herbalism - a review" by Elumalai and Eswariah. I trust the current nominator Chiswick Chap and would like to ask what we should do next here. Do you want to have some more time or put this article through a more formal analysing process (if there is something like TurnItIn on Wikipedia)?

Will address remainder of article content once this has been addressed. If this is copyright problem we will need to look into other edits of the uploading editor.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The paper you mention is at "Herbalism - a review and it was certainly copied on 28 Nov 2013. Rich Farmbrough reverted it as a "massive copyvio" on 24 Apr 2014, but the offending edit was repeated on 3 June 2014 and nobody noticed until today. I'm cleaning up the article now; and yes, an investigation into that editor's activities will also be required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): OK, I've cleaned up the mess. The wording may be crisper, too. ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK @Chiswick Chap I have waited some time for editing to settle down, will get to the review now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Undecided. See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	At present, no image captions are cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Several concerns below
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Fixed
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See below
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments mark 2

Thanks for your work to this fascinating article and for your prompt replies to the copyright issue I have identified above. I find the text readable and well-written. Some comments related to the review, against the good article criteria (WP:GA?) below:

Well-written

• The article is in the main well-written. Small comments

Thanks.

• No need to include "(MAP)" abbreviation

Removed.

• I do not agree with "In India, herbal remedies are important enough to have a government department, AYUSH, under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare" -- part of the purpose of this programme has been to help develop the industry, rather than just because the remedies are important.

Fixed.

• The alkaloid section has a list of medications derived from plants but doesn't mention what plants these come from - the article is about medicinal plants rather than medicines derived from plants so the plants should be mentioned.

Fixed.

Thanks - much better --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Will finish the review of 'well-written' when concerns below are addressed.

Noted.

Broadness

• The article feels a little sparse after all that content was removed. Some thoughts:

Noted.

• The history section now feels more like a list. Perhaps some more information and/or dates could help in ancient ties

The history is actually quite a substantial part of the text, supported by relevant images. I've added a section heading and some connecting text which I hope helps a little.

Thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The history section also lacks information from the americas

Discussed both Mexican Badianus MS and the Columbian Exchange.

Thanks, much better. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The history section is missing information about modern history - eg how such plants were commercialised, governmental efforts, notable persons, WHO involvement, government programmes

Personally I always stop "history" before modern times, and discuss modern usage in sections such as usage (and the rest of the article).

Understood... my meaning is not so much including this information under the title of "history" but that there is quite a bit of information missing about modern history - such as laws, regulations, international treaties + organisations, use in pharmaceutical industry, and modern efforts to systematically analyse medicinal plants, and development of medicines, commercialisation, use in the drug trade + organised crime, etc. That said, even though this information is missing, I think this article currently meets the "broad" standard of GA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Several images have content not mentioned in the article (eg medicinal plant gardens, herbalists)

Medicinal plants are the topic of the article. Herbalism is the topic of the whole "In practice" section, but have belt-and-braces cited the image also.

OK - and I am occasionally very thick - I should mention the article doesn't actually define herbs or herbalism. Are herbs the same as medicinal plants, and herbalism is the practice of growing such plants? with no religious or alternative medicine overtones? For stupider readers such as myself I'd be grateful if you could briefly somewhere include these basic facts and synonyms --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Medicinal herbs now treated as a synonym (boldface).

• There is no mention of how medicinal plants are grown presently (eg organically? hydroponically? farmed? industrially or individually?)

Cultivation section added.

Thanks and this partially addresses above. The cultivation section should also mention the medicinal plant industry but, as mentioned, this article already is suitably "broad" for GA --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• More should be mentioned about modern use, including in Ayuverdic medicine, traditional chinese medicine, western herbalism traditions

See below.

• Something should be mentioned about drugs derived from plants (by which I mean opium, heroin, cannabis, marijuana) and their changing legal status: marijuana is in particular seen by some to be a "medicinal plant" and this is quite a topical issue

Added a paragraph in Usage, with wikilinks to the forest of articles in that area.

Thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The "In practice" section should probably start with a general introduction to the different people involved (you could mention herbalism, TCM, Ayuverdic medicine etc. here)

That doesn't fit with the section's structure, which talks about aspects of the practice from cultivation and usage to effectiveness, safety, and quality. I've linked Ayurveda, TCM and CAM (without the hideous acronyms) from the "Usage" section

Thanks for this. Agree with what you say. See above for my 'herbalism' comment --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

• AYUSH should be wikilinked in the "In practice" section

Done.

Focus

• Good

Thanks.

• There is however an odd diversion regarding the gravesite in Iran

Removed.

Verifiability

• Image captions remain unverified

Reffed; however this is not normally needed when image reflects cited text.

Thanks. I was particularly concerned about a lot of the plant and drug-related images which were not always directly cited in text. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• There are too many citations in several sections of the article. Some sections have 5-7 citations to support relatively straightfoward and noncontroversial statements. I would suggest select the best citations and cull the rest

Done.

Thanks, the difference is noticeable. Several instances of double citing for what seems to me fairly straightforward statements remain: --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"Hildegard of Bingen wrote Causae et Curae ("Causes and Cures") on medicine"

"Avicenna included many plants in his 1025 The Canon of Medicine"

"In Mexico, the sixteenth century Badianus Manuscript described medicinal plants available in Central America"

"Since plants may contain many different substances, plant extracts may have complex effects on the human body"

Slimmed them all down. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• When the number of citations has been whittled down, I will review the medical claims against WP:MEDRS, in particular the use of results of primary sources which may not be globally generalisable --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Noted, but a) most of the claims are not medical; b) mostly used history/overview parts of papers, i.e. not primary findings but widely accepted facts. There's nothing new and controversial here. If we stay away from drug legalisation, of course.

Thanks and noted! Also thanks for including that brief sentence about ilicit drugs and control thereof. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Only some minor concerns with claims:--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reported here as "By 2010, clinical trials had demonstrated potentially useful activity in nearly 36% of herbal medicines; another 12% had effectively never been studied scientifically" - reported in article as 12% of plant extracts in the Western market, which is not how the statement reads (also - is it correct to equate plant extract with a herbal medicine? are all plant extracts herbal medicines?); would you be able to have a look and copy here the 36% part? (I don't have full access)

Well spotted, we had a blend of several papers there. I've reworked it from the abstract of Cravotto 2010 (a review paper) and removed the other refs.

• • "Plant medicines are dangerous during pregnancy" - second source is a primary source and shouldn't be used. Also I feel this should be reworded to "can be dangerous" given the innocuous nature of some of your exams (eg thyme, fennel, rhubarb). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.

• • "One-third of herbal supplements sampled in a 2013 study contained no trace of the herb listed on the label" such a broad statement is surely not generalisable to the worldwide audience of Wikipedia or even in a single state of origin country. The original study is here [1] and is also a primary source. Another question - is "Herbal medicine" the same as "Plant medicine?"

Softened the claim, and yes.

Other

• No concerns with images, neutrality or stability.

Noted.

Happy to discuss these items piecemeal or below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): I've replied to all the items, resulting in a fair bit of polishing of the article. I hope you're pleased with the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, Chiswick Chap --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): OK, I think I've responded to everything now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your patience and responsiveness throughout this review. I find this article to meet the standards for GA and have promoted it. For further expansion (for example if considering a future FA) this article will need to improve on its comprehensiveness, however it satisfies the "broadness" criteria of GA so I'm promoting it. Well done! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)