Talk:Bromazepam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AioftheStorm (talk · contribs) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. :) AioftheStorm (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have gone ahead and failed this review. My primary problems with this article are the prose, lack of inline citations in certain areas, and potential for expansion. If those are addressed and resubmitted for review this article will probably pass.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead doesn't adequately summarise the article. Primarily, mention of its indications should be made(why do people take this drug?), and also a sentence on prominent side effects, contraindications, interactions, and potential for dependence should be added. In total I think a lead of about 4-7 sentences should cover this article. My only other gripe with the lead is the use of the word anxiolytic without a definition or context clues to discern its meaning. Perhaps it should be replaced with antianxiety, or just say (antianxiety) after it. Lead looks good to me. The side effects section is very choppy, single floating sentences should be hincorporated into larger paragraphs, and sentence fragments should be fleshed out into full sentences. Although it is difficult to explain jargon in a way that is understandable to lay people without being too wordy, a few more words in the third paragraph of the "Tolerance, dependence and withdrawal" section should be added to help illuminate to the casual reader what any of that means. Additionally the subsections under contraindications should probably be changed into a bulleted list. Other than those and a few small hiccups the writing is reasonably well written and follows the WP:MOS.

What exactly do you want me to add to the "Tolerance, dependence and withdrawal" section? It is pretty straight forward, but give me an idea. Thanks. --Dendro†Naja ^{Talk to me!} 17:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"decreased turnover of noradrenaline and dopamine and serotonin ... decreased activity of tyrosine hydroxylase and increased levels of the catecholamines ... a fall in tryptophan, 5-hydroxytryptamine levels occurs"

What do these chemicals do and why do we care about their changes? 5-hydroxytryptamine is serotonin, just a different name, and although varied word choice is usually good, for technical paragraphs I think using the same term will keep things simpler for the reader. I've also gone ahead and changed "decreased" to "increased" for tyrosine hydroxylase's activity. Tyrosine hydroxylase produces L-DOPA, which is a precursor to several catecholamines(noradrenaline and dopamine being two of the catecholamines that are derived from L-DOPA), which is why an increase in tyrosine hydroxylase was observed alongside an increase in catecholamines. Similarly tryptophan modulates the synthesis of serotonin, which is why a decrease in both was observed. 4-5 sentences should be enough to basically state what they are, what they do, how the drug affects them, and how them being effected affects the person. Anyways, sorry for the late replies here, I will try to finish my review over the weekend.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prose still is awkward in many places. Sentence fragments such as "Impaired memory, visual information processing and sensory data and impaired psychomotor performance." need to be changed into full sentences. Floating single sentence paragraphs need to be incorporated into larger paragraphs, and paragraphs need to flow better show more organization.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is not apparent for several sentences which source is being used to support them, for instance the last part of the side effects section has no citations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The Legal Status section needs to be longer than one sentence. An explanation of what a Schedule IV drug, why Bromazepam is classified as one, and potentially its legality elsewhere would be nice provided such info can be found. Also see here, and here for potential ideas on how to expand this section. The interactions section should similarly be expanded, perhaps with an explanation of what the consequences of bromazepam's interaction with these other drugs is, should bromazepam never be prescribed with them, should it be prescribed but at lower dosages? What are these drugs, why would someone be taking them? How do they cause this interaction? There is much that can be added: that cimetidine inhibits stomach acid production and is used to treat heart burn, and that its use reduces bromazepam clearance and increases its elimination half-life, that propranolol, used to treat hypertension, anxiety, and panic has been shown to significantly increase elimination half-life but has not been shown to reduce bromazepam clearance. Anything at all to make this section larger than a sentence.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: