Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tobacco/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tobacco[edit]

Well written and fairly comprehensive article about tobacco, covering its history, use and details about it. Has images, references, a good amount of detail and does not appear to be controversial. I only just came across it, but it appears to me to be one of the better articles I've read on Wikipedia. Mistertim 04:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, although I feel that the History section could use more content-- the introduction of tobacco into Europe was not without controversy and attempts at strict legal regulation or prohibition. Edeans 05:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I had not previously contributed to this article, but I agree with Edeans's comments. In response, I have enhanced the History section with some information about John Rolfe and the Colonial period in Virginia. I don't' have the information mentioned about the negative response in Europe, but that would help round out the History portion of article. Regarding the period since colonial days, although the tobacco companies in the U.S. have consolidated considerably, and appear to have taken a lower, profile in light of all the litigation, Philip Morris USA is still the largest employer here in Richmond, Virginia. I am not quite sure how to fit that information in, if it belongs in this article at all Vaoverland 08:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I like Vaoverland's edit to the History section. Rolfe was a major player in tobacco's early export and promotion. I added a paragraph on one of tobacco's most notable and strident early opponents, King James VI / I. Further contributions are still needed, though. Edeans 19:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. I think the history section is still too short. If the history is expanded, I'll be happy to support. Mgm|(talk) 09:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Tobacco is more than a nicotine source. Nothing on tobacco as a GMO/bioreactor.--ZayZayEM 13:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Object I concur; this article does a good job of discussing the cultural aspects of tobacco, but it needs better information about its properties (chemical and biological), and especially the objection mentioned above (should explain why tobacco is commonly used to research plant diseases/GMO).--Confuzion 07:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. I've been a major contributor to the article, so this vote may not count. This objection may be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, but I've been quite pleased with how the article has evolved over the years. Featuring it could well call down legions of additional viewers, including hard-core ideologues from the pro- and anti- cigarette smoking camps. I concede that it could also have a positive effect, but I suspect that the small number of students of the history and biology of the plant and its culture will be overwhelmed by a shouting match. --Ben 21:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object This is well-written and interesting, but it needs a References section and some inline references. Also, there's no information about the health effects of using tobacco. I know there's another articles on tobacco smoking, but even so, there should be something in this article too. I would definitely support it if those two issues were addressed. SlimVirgin 12:56, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The history section is too short and talks only about what happened in Europe and US and only until 1883. How did it get from Europe to other places of world? Legal issues on tobacco like the taxation and the state monopoly are mostly missing as well. Revth 23:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. Further reading is not the same thing, as that title is ambiguous as to whether the resource has been used for material and fact checking of the article or if it is just made available for more information for the reader. Also agree with the ommisions in topic coverage that SlimVirgin and Revth have pointed out. Finally, a minor point is where does the quote set of in the snuff section come from. It needs to say where it is from, otherwise it is just confusing nd incomplete. - Taxman 19:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more on Native American usages, including ceremonial usages. And what's up with the headers with nothing below them? RickK 06:29, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've just finished fixing the header problem. I expect to flesh the culture section out quite a bit in the next week or so. Ben 02:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)