Talk:Benzodiazepine/GA1

GA Review

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

I nominated this article for upgrade to Good Article status. It was last ranked in May 2007 as a B class article when it was in this condition. I think that since then major improvements have taken place. Whilst it is not up to the standard of a featured article just yet, I think that the content is good enough to rank it as a good article. I hope that you all agree. I look forward to suggestions of how to further improve the article either to pass it as a good article or to get it as a featured article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this article be quick-failed for now. You've obviously not checked even the 1st source cited in the history section. It's a book, but the URL given is http://www.etfrc.com/benzos1.htm, which does not appear connected with the book. Given the discussion about the truthiness of other info that started only a few days ago on the article's talk page, this nomination appears premature. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given the amount of literature available on benzos, I would expect that reviews should form the bulk of the sources cited. This does not appear to be the case; the 1st source cited in the lede, PMID 10816315, is a primary study, which may be quite significant for some part of the mechanism of action (GABAA receptor alpha1 subtype), but you're not even citing it for its main finding. The 2nd source cited in the lede, also for a general fact is another RCT, PMID 15567810. I'm quick-failing this article. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment, but more leaning towards a fail even on GA status, taking into account the above and depending on what other editors have to say. I've recently had some problems with the chemistry on this article, and I don't think they're fully resolved. It's an important article, so it's important to get it right. If you're looking to get it up to FA-standard, I suggest you ask for collaboration at both WP:DRUGS and WP:CHEMS: I'm willing to put some work into solving my worries, but not this afternoon, maybe next week! Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations and doing the review. The data added by an anon user which was suspect was deleted though but I take on board the other concerns regarding the article. It needs some more work. Perhaps it can be renominated in a month or 2 after the issues have been resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done extensive work recently to the benzodiazepine article and have added a lot of reviews and got rid of the bulk of the primary sources. I think that if it is not up to a good article now it is getting very close. Can it be reassessed now for good article status?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]