Talk:Alprazolam/GA2

GA Review 2

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

I've finished him initial GA review of this article. Before we begin I'd like to say that I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject but if this article is indeed good enough then I shouldn't feel totally lost ;) I'm just going to run down the various comments I have as I go along reviewing the article so sometimes it may be a bit jumbled, bear with him and please feel free to ask for any clarifications you may need. I've also tried to look at the Style guide & Manual of style of the projects listed on the talk page to make sure I don't misjudge something that may be normal with these types of articles.

First off I'll take the list of comments from Doc James and repeat those I think are warranted still.

Number of lists - can't totally disagree with that, 8 lists in the article is a problem. I can agree that some lists are fine, some subjects are best organized in lists, but something could be better in prose form. I'd suggest the lists in the sections Therapeutic uses, Patients at a high risk for abuse and addiction and the last list in the Physical dependence and withdrawal section be turned into prose - more would be good but this would bring it down a bit into the more acceptable range.

Fixed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability - it's a concern that it's a frequent vandal target, even more so if it's to become an article that's supposed to represent Wikipedia. But vandalism is NOT covered by the "Stability" section so I'm not too worried about that part. Although I might suggest you seeking out semi-protection to keep the IP vandalism down. Just a comment.

I and other editors have in the past requested temporary blocks when the article is getting vandalised. This can easily be resolved at times of high vandalism by requesting page protection. There have been no major content disputes of the article. Vandalism I don't think is part of the criteria for good article? I think it is content dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted - well a bit here and there, it's a hard subject and will at times be a bit convoluted - I'll list any specific problems I might find.

I think there was more stuff but I'd rather just get to my own review.

Under "Legal status" in the drug box you've got to fix the link, it should go to "#Schedule IV controlled substances" to work the way it was intended.

Fixed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section: From the Pharmacology Style guide I found the following "If available, there should be a timeline of first synthesis, approval dates (U.S., Europe, UK, etc), when marketing stopped or ownership transferred, etc." - this article is totally US centric in the history part, a few international details would make this section more rounded.

Can't locate information at the the moment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Style guide mentions a section I cannot see: "Indications"? Also it says that in "Availability" there should be a section that describes "what forms the drug is available in"?

I changed therapeutic uses to indications.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I have also fixed the lack on info on forms alprazolam is available in.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Jargon - I know it's not an easily accessible subject but I can't see if there have even been attempts at making the text more easily accessible to people that don't already know the subject. Pharmacology & Pharmacokinetics jumps out at me where some of the terms could be explained in layman's terms instead of the more textbook-y version there is now.

I added a sentence about GABA being the calming chemical and system in the body so that the lay reader can now understand the general gist of that section. Pharmacokinetics I don't think can be made much more understandable as it is by definition a rather technical aspect to the drug article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"younger patients" - term falls under the category "Signs of writing for (other) healthcare professionals:" found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (Patient is used more places too and a Doctor or two).

I fixed "in younger patients", changed it to younger adults.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contraindications in this section there is a list of conditions but only one line has a source. If the source on the last line covers the entire list I'd recommend turning it into prose and then use the source at the end of the paragraph to cover the whole thing, that way it's clear what the source covers.

Fixed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drug interactions: reads like a series of short, telegram style lines - almost like a list but without the bullets, these short paragraphs makes the section seem choppy.
Citations at the end of the sentences - always.

Fixed I think.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drug interactions: Contains this sentence "Cimetidine, erythromycin, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, itraconazole, ketoconazole, nefazodone, propoxyphene and ritonavir all interact with alprazolam leading to a delayed clearance of alprazolam which may result in excessive accumulation of alprazolam." - I read it and then I go "Yes and? Maybe explain why that could be a problem? That section has more examples where it'd be nice to have a bit more explanation because I'm left wondering "yes but what does that mean/matter?"

Fixed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drug interactions: Big sufferer of Jargonitis.

Fixed or improved?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Withdrawal Symptoms & Possible/Less Common Withdrawal Symptoms don't seem to be sourced and neither is the last list in that section?

It was sourced. I fixed it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read I'm left with the impression that either I'm stupid (and I don't generally think that) or this is written way too inaccessibly for anyone that does not know the subject matter that well. This is honestly the article's biggest problem.

I'm placing the review on hold to give people a chance to these problems. If you have questions feel free to ask. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made improvements to the article that you suggested. The history section is difficult to improve. Maybe it can pass Good Article status but to get up the a featured article the history section could be one of the recommendations to get it up to featured article? I dunno. I think hiring out books from the library might be necessary to get the history of alprazolam although maybe it can be tracked down online with some hard looking I dunno. I have made changes and other editors have made changes according to your suggestions. Perhaps you can suggest what needs more work or state whether it now passes good article status?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over the improvements, I'm glad to see that you guys have taken my criticism constructively and made good use of it. Less lists, more accessible in parts and everything. I also understand that parts of this article will invariably come off a bit technical because of the subject and that's acceptable. So congratulations I've passed the article for GA. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]