Jump to content

Talk:History of penicillin/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll have a look at this one. Not an expert in the subject matter by any means, so please do bear with me.

Comments

[edit]

On first read, this is a hugely comprehensive article and does a good job of telling the story clearly, even to someone with relatively little grasp of the technical details. Considering its immense length, I am impressed by the quality and accuracy of the prose. Most of the below are points of grammar or clarity: I'll do an image review and source checks once I've gone through the text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on a major assignment. I had considered splitting the article in two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's the first pass done. I still need to do spot-checks for TSI, CLOP and so on, but that's probably best left until after the comments below have been dealt with to the extent that they're going to be. Again, nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments

[edit]
Resolved comments
Lead
[edit]
  • which he named penicillin in 1928: italicise penicillin per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
    checkY Because of the proximity of so many italics for Latin words, I have exercised the MOS alternative of quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penicillium notatum (now Penicillium rubens): "now known as..." or similar, to clarify that it's the same mould under a different name?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph: three consecutive sentences start with They [verbed] (two are they developed) - consider mixing up for elegance.
    checkY Re-worded to make it more elegant and reduce the use of "developed". The triple "they" here is deliberate, though, a form of repetition as a rhetorical device. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that rhetorical device is really right for an encyclopaedia – it reminded me a little of Pericles's Funeral Oration – but style is almost a non-issue for GA. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten years later, in 1939: suggest simply in 1939; the previous events were in 1928, so 1939 seems like 11 years later to me.
    The text wanted to emphasises that nothing happened for ten years. This was something that Fleming and others tried to hide. Without this it might appear that he worked on it until 1939. Changed to "over ten years later" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we simply say as much: that Fleming practically ceased work on penicillin, and little progress was made in its study until... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the war: clarify which one, and when it ended (WP:POPE).
    checkY When my grandfather mentioned "the war" he always meant The Big One back in 1914-1918. But I normally write military history articles, and to most of their readers "1939" and "1945" tells them all they need to know. Changed to "After the Second World War ended in 1945" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agriculture became a major user of penicillin: it feels a bit weird to use an abstract noun (agriculture) in such a not-abstract sentence; consider Penicillin came to be widely used in agriculture or similar.
    That doesn't mean the same thing. Aluminium is widely used to make drink cans, but that doesn't mean that industry is a major user of aluminium.
    Yes, fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

[edit]

Early scientific evidence

[edit]
  • When did Burdon-Sanderson's observations take place? They seem to be earlier than the 1870s, which slightly contradicts the first sentence of this section. What was his first job at St. Mary's?
    checkY Not covered by the source, so deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea of when the nurse at KCH was treated? I'd also suggest clarifying that it's in London.
    checkY Not in the source, so deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert Koch discovered that a bacterium (Bacillus anthracis) was the causative pathogen of anthrax, which became the first demonstration that a specific bacterium caused a specific disease, and the first direct evidence of germ theory of diseases: the last comma is tricky: was Koch's discovery the first direct evidence for germ theory? If so, the comma should be removed.
    checkY Yes, it was. Deleted the comma. I personally think it is is fine, but whatever. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • cultures of the anthrax bacilli: I may be wrong, but think this should either be of anthrax bacilli or of the anthrax bacillum.
    checkY I don't know either. Deleted "the". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels weird to clarify that Brussels (a capital city) is in Belgium when not clarifying that Lyon is in France; I'd suggest cutting Belgium, which would also make the sentence flow better.
    checkY Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gratia called the antibacterial agent as "mycolysate" (killer mould).: the as feels out of place, and mycolysate doesn't straightforwardly mean "killer mould" (it means "mould dissolver"). Did Gratia use both terms?
    checkY Deleted "as". And "killer mould", as it appears to be a Wikipedian translation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comptes Rendus Des Séances de La Société de Biologie et de Ses Filiales: French capitalisation usually capitalises only the first word and proper nouns in a title, so Comptes rendus des séances de la Société de Biologie et de ses filiales.
    checkY Changed capitalisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long quote from Pasteur and Joubert is cited to Florey 1946. Is it a direct quotation? If so, I'd change the citation to "Quoted in...".
    Yes and no. The original is in French, which you can read here. The quotation is Florey's translation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so "Quoted and translated in..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mould discovery

[edit]
  • Recommend consistency on whether it's e.g. Scottish physician Alexander Fleming, the Scottish physician Alexander Fleming, or a Scottish physician, Alexander Fleming.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "research scholar" quite the right term? I've heard "research assistant" or "research student", but never this.
    checkY Yes. A research scholar is a college student or graduate who works on projects in a specific field for a university or organization. As a research scholar, you work with professors and other professionals in your field of study and focus on uncovering new information that can be published in academic or trade journals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. My academic background is in old-fashioned places, where they have "[Junior] Research Fellows" as something analogous to a postdoc; you'd describe a person as a JRF but not normally as someone's JRF ("she's a Research Fellow in the Department of Engineering", but not "she's Prof. Smith's Research Fellow"). Is "research scholar" used in that way in sources, particularly British English ones? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is what the sources say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. notatum was described by Swedish chemist Richard Westling in 1811. From then on, Fleming's mould...: the phrasing is a bit confusing, since it wasn't in any sense Fleming's in 1811.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole genome sequence and phylogenetic analysis in 2011 revealed that Fleming's mould belongs to P. rubens, a species described by Belgian microbiologist Philibert Biourge in 1923, and also that P. chrysogenum is a different species: I don't see the relevant of the last bit: surely, if it's P. rubens, it's self-evident that it's a different species to P. chrysogenum?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1966, La Touche told Hare that he had given Fleming 13 specimens of fungi (10 from his lab) and only one from his lab was showing penicillin-like antibacterial activity: per MOS:NUM, we should be consistent within a passage of text as to whether numbers are written in words or figures. Personally, I'd normally use words for twenty and below, but I'm a verbose humanities-ist.
    checkY Me too. Switched to words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • without any effect. It probably was: clarify it.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • his colleague-surgeon Arthur Dickson Wright for clinical test in 1928: better, I think, as his colleague, surgeon Arthur Dickson Wright, for clinical testing in 1928.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are no records of its specific use: as opposed to non-specific use: what does specific mean here?
    checkY Looks like a weasel word. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the drug did not penetrate deep enough: not quite clear: into the skin?
    checkY Yes. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest paraphrasing the lengthy quotation from G.E. Breen to "asked Fleming whether penicillin would ever have a practical application" or similar.
    checkY paraphrased as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the main facts emerging from a very comprehensive study [of penicillin] in which a large team of workers is engaged... does not appear to have been considered as possibly useful from any other point of view.": this quote, as currently cut, is ungrammatical: the plural noun facts cannot be the subject of the singular verb does.
    checkY Replaced with the proper quote.
  • Should alcohol be ethanol?
    checkY Source says "alcohol", but penicillin is soluble in ethanol. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is penicillin soluble in chloroform? The article implies as much but doesn't directly say.
    checkY Yes. Explicitly stated this, with a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving on to ophthalmia neonatorum, an infection in babies, he achieved the first cure on 25 November 1930, four patients (one adult, the others infants) with eye infections.: this is a little unclear. Probably worth clarifying that it's an eye infection in babies: how could an adult pick it up?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid the complete sentence no longer makes sense to me: Moving on to ophthalmia neonatorum, an eye infection in babies, he achieved the first cure on 25 November 1930, four patients (one adult, the others infants) with eye infections.: did he cure one case of ophthalmia neonatorum on 25 November, and subsequently cure (three, four?) other patients with (different) eye infection? The last clause in particular has gone a little awry, grammatically. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cident as contamination by other bacteria rather than by mould.}}: WP:DUEWEIGHT seems to be a consideration here. Is this now the general view on what happened? If not, and de Kruif's idea is a minority view, I think this placement gives undue weight to it; a footnote might be more appropriate. Is Microbe Hunters a book?

  • checkY Yes, it is a book. It is in the References. Deleted the assertion that Pasteur thought it was a mould, which is not supported by the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go with de Kruif's 1926 book Microbe Hunters, then. My DUEWEIGHT worry remains: what's the general view of de Kruif's idea today? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY I think there is a misunderstanding here. The point is that Pasteur noticed an antibiotic reaction, but did not attribute it to mould, but to the action of bacteria (a reasonable but incorrect guess). Re-worded to make this point clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this article's subject has strong national ties to the UK (WP:ENGVAR), I'd advise against the Americanism vacation.
    In the UK it means a university teaching break. So the usage is correct here. I could change it to "the summer break". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "the summer break" is a good idea; we do use vacation (certainly at old-fashioned places) for the university breaks, but you'd almost certainly specify in that context ("Hawking spent the Michaelmas Vacation in London", or "after the Lent Term, Crick worked through the vacation"): you wouldn't use it, as here, non-specifically as "a vacation". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Changed to "summer break". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original colony of this mould, which proved to be Penicillium notatum, [sic]: is the sic because it wasn't, in fact, P. notatum? Before the comma, if so, but as this is a factual mistake rather than a grammatical one, I'd suggest replacing with an explanatory footnote.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it true, as the article suggests, that the mould was not in fact P. notatum? If so, I'd certainly use a clarifying footnote so that we can report the original belief without misleading the reader. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not suggest it, it explicitly states, backed up with a reliable source, that "Whole-genome sequence and phylogenetic analysis in 2011 revealed that Fleming's mould belongs to P. rubens". But this was not known until 2011. I don't see the need for a footnote along the lines of "as noted above, in 2011 Fleming's mould was found to actually belong to P. rubens". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now in another article, so the point is moot for present purposes. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation

[edit]
  • Explain briefly what a bacteriophage is, as it's important to what follows.
    checkY Not really, but added. The importance here is that a sample of penicillin was on hand when Florey decided to research it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure on the logic as to when sums of money are given with or without their present-day equivalents: I'd suggest using some sort of consistent system here.
    Some editors thought that there was no need for multiple ones near each other. Added a couple more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd briefly explain why ether is/was so dangerous before talking about a "much less dangerous" chemical.
    checkY "Ethers have a long history of causing laboratory fires and explosions." They also have been known to cause deaths from exposure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most laboratory containers did not provide a large, flat area, and so were an uneconomical use of incubator space, so glass bottles laid on their sides were used: I'm not sure I fully understand this, but perhaps it would help to know what shape the incubator was?
    There's a image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup: my issue is that glass bottles laid on their sides don't provide a large, flat area either, so I'm not sure how the two halves of the sentence go together. Images are fine but shouldn't be used for anything it's essential that the reader understand, since some of our users can't access them (e.g. because of visual impairments, or because they use the auto-censor which defaults to blurring them). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • checkY I have linked to the article on incubators. An incubator looks like a refrigerator. I have made the point clearer. A description of the containers follows in the next sentence.
  • a brief note as to why 37°C is a sensible temperature for this? More widely, the article is inconsistent about whether to use (and convert) Celsius or Fahrenheit.
    checkY All measurements are in metric, per MOS:METRIC. Where the source is an imperial measurement, a conversion is provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made this point later on, but I'd advise giving the sourced number first, even if it's imperial: converting implies rounding, and it's more honest to say that Fleming measured someone's height as six foot three (which is what actually showed on his tape measure, what he read out and what he wrote down) and then convert into cm for the reader's benefit.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be my preference too, but MOS:METRIC says to use metric first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it does - all's well here, then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passage on Florey's application to the Rockefeller foundation could be trimmed for excess detail.
    This becomes very important later on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now read on to the point where it does, I see what you mean. However, I'm not sure we really need the whole of this:

Florey felt that more would be required. On 1 November 1939, Henry M. "Dusty" Miller Jr from the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation paid Florey a visit. Miller was enthusiastic about the project. He encouraged Florey to apply for funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and recommended to Foundation headquarters in New York that the request for financial support be given serious consideration. "The work proposed", Florey wrote in the application letter, "in addition to its theoretical importance, may have practical value for therapeutic purposes." His application was approved, with the Rockefeller Foundation allocating US$5,000 (£1,250) per annum for five years.

To me, the key facts here are that Florey received the grant, that Miller initiated and supported it, and perhaps that Florey was already looking on to clinical applications. We could do something much more concise like:

Florey applied to the Rockefeller Foundation for funding, on the encouragement of Henry M. "Dusty" Miller Jr from its Natural Sciences Division. Florey's application, which predicted that penicillin research could have therapeutic as well as theoretical value, was supported by a recommendation from Miller to the foundation's headquarters in New York. The foundation approved the request and allocated the research US$5,000 (£1,250) per annum for five years.

Not in itself a major issue, but given the length of the article, it's a good idea to cut for readability and approachability where we can do so without making major sacrifices. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trials
[edit]
  • Florey's team at Oxford showed that Penicillium extract: to be clear, this extract is not the same as penicillin?
    Fleming called the mould extract "penicillin", but Florey used "penicillin" to mean the active ingredient (which Fleming had not isolated). Later St. Mary's would attempt to use this to confuse people.
  • and noted that it was not an enzyme that broke the bacteria down, nor an antiseptic that killed them; rather, it interfered with the process of cell division.: this could do with a slight rephrase for clarity: it's a bit of a garden-path sentence where we initially read "it was not..." to mean "it was not [the case that...]" ("it's not the size of the dog in the fight..."), but it's later revealed to refer to penicillin. Suggest "they determined that penicillin was not, as previously thought (?), an enzyme that broke the bacteria down, nor an antiseptic that killed them; rather, it interfered with the process of cell division."
    checkY Tweaked the wording along the lines suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a sulphonamide: for us non-chemists, why is it being mentioned here?
    checkY Added a quick explanation. Linked to a better article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • show that penicillin is active in vivo against at least three of the organisms inhibited in vitro: either both or neither of in vivo and in vitro should be italicised.
    checkY (Has a look.) Florey does not italicise; seems to have been the work of a wiki-gnome. De-italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth explaining briefly what The Lancet is: in particular, that it's an extremely prestigious journal, which might make the muted reaction to the publication a bit surprising?
    checkY Added that it was "a prestigious medical journal", with supporting citation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publication of their results attracted little attention; Florey would spend much of the next two years attempting to convince people of its significance.: presumably, Florey was interested in the significance of the results rather than of their publication: if so, their significance.
    checkY Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Columbia team presented the results of their penicillin treatment of four patients: we've met two (Alston and Aronson) already, but where did the other two come from?
    checkY See Hobby, pp. 72-73. Two patients with endocarditis. One is just called "Mr Conant" and the other is unnamed, altough the treatment and dosages received is described in detail. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We wouldn't normally mention a journalist's name (rather than the newspaper's) in connection with a report, but is William Laurence a big enough deal to make an exception?
    Hell yes! The most famous science reporter of the era, perhaps of all time. I encountered him on the Manhattan Project articles. He was present at the Trinity nuclear test for which he wrote the cover stories and flew on the Nagasaki mission as an observer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had had a small sore at the corner of his mouth, which then spread: suggest clarifying the chronology here: by the time we're talking about, he no longer had a small sore. Maybe something like "who had a severe facial infection involving streptococci and staphylococci which had developed from a small sore at the corner of his mouth"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100-millimetre (4 in): presumably, the measurement was originally given as 4in? If so, I'd give that measurement in the main text, then convert in brackets, to indicate that 100mm is the rounded figure. Likewise for other cases where the source gives an imperial measurement.
    As noted above, the MOS says otherwise. See consensus with an RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, happy that this is solved as above per MOS:METRIC UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Sir Percival Hartley? Another Florey point here: which one?
    checkY Added a bit about him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reader was Fleming, who paid them a visit on 2 September 1940. Florey and Chain gave him a tour of the production, extraction and testing laboratories, but he made no comment and did not even congratulate them on the work they had done: clearer, I think, if we use Florey and Chain's names where we currently have them, and then they later on. Suggest deleting even as a sort of weasel word (it makes a moral judgement that he should have congratulated them, which isn't a verifiable statement). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see why Mary Ethel Florey isn't referred to as Florey, but using her first name only is odd and has the unfortunate consequence of applying less formality to her vs. her male colleagues. Suggest "Mary Florey" vs. "Howard Florey", which can then be "Mary" and "Howard" if mentioned again within the same passage. Ethel was placed in charge, but while Florey... is unclear.
    checkY Changed to Howard Florey here, but elsewhere "Florey" is understood to mean Howard, and it would be awkward to keep repeating his first name. Note that Margaret Jennings was also Lady Florey. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about 'is understood': you might understand that, but I don't think we can rely on all of our readers making the same assumption. One option would be to footnote it: otherwise, I'd suggest using "Howard Florey" or "Ethel Florey" (or indeed "Lady Florey") the first time that one of them is mentioned in a given passage or chunk of text; as long as they're the only Florey in the area, they can then be "Florey" until the next long break. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we could delete all mentions of Ethel Florey, but I didn't really want to do that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That wouldn't be at all necessary: we just need to name her and her husband in a way that's clear and close enough to neutral with regards to gender. There's plenty of ways to do it, but I don't see that the suggestion I made above would be particularly difficult to implement. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY The first mention of Florey in each section is "Howard Florey", except in the sections where Ethel Florey is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deep submergence for industrial production
[edit]
Mass Production
[edit]
  • Robert D. Coghill: a matter of taste, but just Coghill would be fine here. Equally, if we're going to reintroduce him, remind the reader of who he is.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it semisynthetic or semi-synthetic? The article isn't consistent, and I don't think we ever explained exactly what this word means.
    checkY Linked. Gone with semisynthesic, per our article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about penicillin research in Germany was gathered by the Manhattan Project's Alsos Mission: I'd suggest some context here: what were nuclear scientists doing spying on German mycologists? In particular, I'd clarify what the Alsos Mission was; I initially parsed it as someone's name.
    checkY Although the Alsos Mission was primarily concerned with nuclear technology, it had a broader mission to gather information on German scientific war research. Added in a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on German-occupied Europe only has a minority of the content from the time of German occupation. Suggest a section on "Continental Europe", into which Germany could be subsectioned if felt necessary.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first traded were seeded on 25 March: I'm not sure what this means.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WPB placed penicillin under allocation: I'm not sure what this means.
    checkY tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical analysis
[edit]
Patents
[edit]
Nobel prize
[edit]


Development of penicillin derivatives
[edit]
  • (bioavailability, spectrum, stability, tolerance): a bit technical, I think, for most readers.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was more advantageous than the original penicillin as it offered a broader spectrum of activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria: worth reminding the reader that the original penicillin only works on Gram+?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The penicillins related β-lactams: this doesn't sound grammatical, though I'm not sure how to fix it.
    checkY re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antibiotic preferences differed from country to country: is this strictly past, or does it continue? If the latter, suggest present tense.
    It was true 15 years ago. Whether it will still be true in ten years' time is likely, but uncertain. Kept the article in the past tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we be more specific on the timeframe implied by e.g. amoxicillin was widely used in the UK, then?
    checkY added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first major development was ampicillin in 1961. It was produced by Beecham Research Laboratories in London. It was more advantageous: awkward phrasing with the two "it was...", the second of which is perhaps slightly ambiguous (or at least a long way from its antecedent). Suggest "The first major development was ampicillin, discovered in 1961 and produced by Beecham Research Laboratories in London. It was more advantageous...".
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antibiotic resistance
[edit]
Notes and references
[edit]
  • To avoid the size of the article blowing out, I have added archive URLs only when they are required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main concern with article size is readable prose; I'd definitely suggest an archive link to anything that isn't a PDF, as the chance of a webpage's text changing under your feet is reasonably high, and it's helpful for the bibliography to show precisely what the source looked like when cited. Not really here or there for GA, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Early scientific evidence

[edit]

Early evidence

[edit]
  • The second quotation translated by Florey should be footnoted in the same way as the first, with the original source if possible.
  • checkY Footnoted. Could not locate the original. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He published a dissertation in 1897, but it was ignored by the Institut Pasteur: the relevance of the Institut Pasteur could do with some explanation: why would he have expected to be noticed by them, and why should he have cared?

Isolation

[edit]

Trials

[edit]

Deep submergence for industrial production

[edit]

Stopping again for now. My admiration continues: I've made a number of very small copyedits, so it's worth just keeping an eye on typos, punctuation, repeated/redundant words and so on, particularly given how colossal this article is. Its size is outside scope for a GA review: my personal thought would be that it's coherent and so happy enough at this length, but equally there would be nothing wrong with a split if a straightforward and logical line for that exists. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Split off the Discovery of penicillin into its own article, which it originally was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass production

[edit]
  • Much of Germany's penicillin came from Czechoslovakia: clarify (if true) that we're talking about the period in which Czechoslovakia was occupied by Germany.
  • Work was also conducted in secret in France: which France are we talking about here: that is, on which side of the war?
  • The penicillin was called "Hekiso" after its blue colour: non-Japanese-speakers will need this explained.
    It is what the sources say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but that doesn't mean that it's understandable or an appropriate phrasing for this website. Do you know (or can you find out) what Hekiso means in Japanese? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hekiso" is the Japanese word for "penicillin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but presumably it literally means something like "blue mould", otherwise the sentence we've written makes little sense. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UK section reads a little bit like a laundry-list of companies and figures: it would be good to have this hashed out into a more coherent narrative.
  • The US production seems to be astronomically higher than that of other countries: the country-by-country approach makes it difficult to see the similarities and differences between them. I'd suggest a short introductory paragraph to the Mass Production section which gives some sort of overall narrative, before we dive into the individual countries.
  • Why did so many firms leave the penicillin market after the war?
    The steep drop in price made it hard to compete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth including in the text, I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Provide me with a reliable source and I will add it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd assumed that you'd have read it somewhere before writing it here! It's not a major problem: it creates a lacuna in the narrative, but comprehensiveness isn't required for GA. Separately, there's a small problem with only twelve: we haven't actually stipulated how many firms (as opposed to plants: one firm can operate many plants) were manufacturing it before: only is defensible from WP:WTW if it's self-evidently a massive drop, but we haven't shown that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it somewhere, but cannot remember where. The switch to deep submergence was the key; this technique could produce penicillin far more cheaply, but involved a considerable capital outlay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

[edit]
  • This section seems like an oddity: I guess it's trying to explain what penicillin does, but it reads as a too-brief collection of what seems like fairly random information. I'd think about how to integrate that information into the rest of the article and get rid of this section.

Chemical analysis

[edit]
  • I now understand the different designations of penicillin: suggest footnoting and linking the reader down to this section when the first "Penicillin X" crops up. However, it seems from this section that we only found out about these different forms in 1945, which seems to contradict what was earlier stated in the article.
  • groups that mask the reactivity of certain functional groups isn't really any clearer than protecting groups to a non-chemist.
    Do you want the explanation deleted? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference would be to make it clearer, or make it into a footnote, which would give you more space to take the reader through it more slowly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • first-generation-resistant penicillinases could do with an explanation. I know we briefly introduced penicillinases further up.
    Yes, we did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We haven't, however, introduced what a "first generation" is, and so the concept of a penicillinase being "first-generation-resistant" is opaque. It can be guessed at from context, but the writing and explanation could also be far clearer. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact, all β-lactam antibiotics: was this discovered in 1957-9, or only later?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A mathematician's answer! The current phrasing is ambiguous as to whether that fact was discovered at the same time as the discovery that 6-APA constituted the nucleus of penicillin; I'd suggest a rephrase to clarify one way or the other. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • now the Beechem Group: now is always liable to date; suggest instead giving the date when they changed their name.
    checkY Beacham merged with SmithKline in 1989, and then with Glaxo in 2000, so it is now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We now have the same with Ernst Brandl of Biochemie (now Sandoz); I might have missed that on first pass. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

[edit]
  • He sought the advice of Sir Henry Hallett Dale: is he Chain or Florey?
    Florey. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor, but I think the use of all as a noun in arguing that penicillin should benefit all is a little dated these days, and Florey's objection isn't incompatible with there being a patent on penicillin. Suggest something like "should be produced for the good of all people rather than for commercial gain"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the British Patent Office (now the Intellectual Property Office).: I'm not sure the modern name is quite necessary, but if it is, see my comment on the Beechem Group above.
  • The controversy over patents led to the establishment of the UK National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) in June 1948.: what's the connection here?
    checkY added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not seeing the point, I'm afraid. Was the idea to formalise and standardise what happened when medicines were discovered on the government's time, and what would happen with the resulting commercial opportunities?
    It was to prevent the Americans from patenting the results of British research. The result was a major cultural change away from when scientists made their results freely available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I'm beginning to see it here (so the NRDC would go and get the patents itself, making sure that a) they existed and b) the Americans didn't get there first? Would clarify in the text.

Nobel prize

[edit]
  • he feared that this would create a demand for penicillin that he did not yet have to give: clarify this (obviously intended to be "the publicity", but grammatically closer to the fact that Florey disliked that publicity) and the second clause (again, that is awkward because it could, grammatically at least, have either a demand or penicillin as its antecedent). Suggest "he feared that this publicity would create more demand for penicillin than his short supplies could satisfy" or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming and St. Mary's Hospital made little or no effort to correct: I'd clarify this if possible: did either Fleming or St. Mary's make any effort? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but there was a larger issue: the story they wished to tell was the familiar one of the lone scientist and the serendipitous discovery.: again, I think the tone is a bit too breezy for Wikipedia.
    ☒N Not changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in itself a major problem, as long as sourced. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development of penicillin derivatives

[edit]
  • phenoxymethylpenicillin: what's that? This is the only use of the word in the article.

Antibiotic resistance

[edit]
  • The widespread belief that antibiotics could cure all ailments: is this backed up by the source? It certainly isn't backed up by the previous sentence: ailments exist which are neither colds nor flu, and I doubt anyone was taking penicillin for a headache or a broken arm.
    It's been done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it, I'm afraid. I see lots on how patients wanted to use antibiotics to cure inappropriate ailments, but nothing suggesting that they thought they could cure everything. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reduced the status of doctors to providers of pills: what does this concretely (verifiably) mean?
    In the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be, but the source operates to different rules to this site: we need everything we say to be verifiable, which doesn't just mean that someone has written it somewhere (we can't claim that Carlsberg is probably the best lager in the world, even if we can cite it). We could have something like "it led to patients insisting on being prescribed antibiotics against their doctors' advice", if that's justifiable. Alternatively, it strikes me that this sentence could be removed and the clarity of the paragraph would be improved, quite separately from this issue. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to this: I don't see that phrase in the source; the closest thing is a complaint from doctors about what they perceived as the decreasing amount of deference paid to them by their patients. That's very different to what we've presented here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    cf pp. 146-147. And we're not supposed to use the same phrases as the source; we're required to summarise in our own words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80,000 in US from bacterial complications; 28 per cent of those who contracted pneumonia died: I assume that pneumonia is (always?) a bacterial complication: is this so? If so, I'd make more explicit.
    That is not correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    many of these were antibiotic-resistant strains implies that pneumonia is something that has strains (in other words, is a bacterium). Some rephrasing of something for accuracy and clarity is needed here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pneumonia is a condition that can becaused by a bacterial infection. Just as a runny nose is a condition caused by a cold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. In which case, as there's no such thing as a strain of a runny nose, we need to rephrase so that we don't have any strains of pneumonia. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use in agriculture

[edit]
  • The reasons for this were still subject to debate in the twenty-first century: can we say anything about what has been suggested?
    We could but it wouldn't be very informative. The source says "While debate continues as to the precise mechanisms by which antibiotics and antibacterials promote growth, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment notes three possible modes of action: a metabolic effect, a nutrient-sparing effect, and a disease-control effect" Followed by a long list of studies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an easy enough addition if we can rephrase those three mechanisms in a slightly more layman-friendly way, but not a major issue for GA. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • improved feed-conversion efficiency: what's that to a non-farmer?
    checkY Most non-farmers are not very interested in farming. Linked to our article, which will tell them more about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Food and Drug Administration improved the use of penicillin as feed additives for poultry and livestock in 1951: should that be approved?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard form figures aren't usual in this kind of context (really, outside an astronomical one); I'd rephrase as e.g. 2,000,000. Why not convert tonnes into tons, though?
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The largest user remained the poultry industry: we implied, but never actually said, that it was the largest to begin with.
    Yes we did. We said it was the first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We did, but then we started talking about "animal feed" rather than "chicken feed", so the reader had no reason to assume that most of those animals were chickens. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was estimated in 1981 that banning their use in animal feed could cost American consumers up to $3.5 billion a year in increased food prices.: is that an estimate by the agricultural industry, I wonder? More generally, this statement might be better contextualised as a reason (among many?) why the government acted relatively slowly, in spite of the fairly foreseeable problem.
    checkY A study by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the mid-1950s, there were reports in the United States that milk was not curdling to make cheese. The FDA found that the milk was contaminated with penicillin: clarify, for those not familiar with cheesemaking, that this process requires the action of bacteria, which the penicillin was killing.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • committee chaired by Lord Netherthorpe was established in the UK to inquire into the use of antibiotics in animal feed.: is this in 1963?
    checkY In 1960. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The committee recommended that restrictions on the use of antibiotics in animals be relaxed: this seems, in the context of what preceded it, utterly insane. Is my chronology right that these recommendations follow the worsening situation where people are becoming allergic to milk and can't make cheese? The article makes it sound as if Netherthorpe viewed antibiotic resistance as a future possibility rather than a current reality.
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the committee was recalled in 1965: what exactly does recalled mean in this context - sacked, or brought back into being?
    It means that they were reassembled to reconsider the issue. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • caused the deaths of: simply killed?
    checkY Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1967, a multiresistant strain of E. coli caused the deaths of fifteen children in the UK. The use of antibiotics in animals for nontherapeutic use was banned in the UK in 1971. Many other European countries soon followed: it feels as though the story has been quite compressed here. Not a major problem for GA. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a long story here, but even for FA I would not expend the section. Instead I would create a subarticle for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Sweden acceded to the European Union (EU) in 1995, there had been a total ban on antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) in place there for ten years. This would be superseded by more relaxed EU rules unless Sweden could demonstrate scientific evidence in favour of a ban. Two Swedish and two Danish took up the fight. The odds seemed against them but this coincided with the United Kingdom BSE outbreak, which resulted in intense political pressure. In December 1996, the European Parliament's Standing Committee on Health and Welfare voted to ban the use of AGPs. The EU went further and recommended broad restrictions on the use of antibiotics: I think this bit needs another look: it moves very fast, gives the sense of missing out key details (it mentions that four people were involved, but doesn't identify them), and the language is a little sensationalising at time ("took up the fight", "the odds seemed against them, but.."). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added the names of the scientists. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Mostly checks out well. A few issues:

Other image points:

Notes and references

[edit]

Hey, I hope you don't mind my intrusion! I looked through some sources and have few comments. Artem.G (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article is not going to pass, so I guess the review can be closed now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Up to you; there's a fairly short list of things that need to be done before it can, and a longer list of things that could be done to make it better, but I'm fully expecting this process to conclude with the necessary changes made and the article passed. One of those necessary things is on my part, which is the spot checks: I can't pass it without them, but I'm happy to simply stop the review at this stage if that's your preferred choice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]

Ref numbers refer to this version.

  • Note 3: the source says that Parkinson documented the use of mould, which has become advocated in our article. It mentions "the benefit of moulds" in connection with his work but stops short of saying that he recommended that anyone else use them (plenty of historical accounts mention the benefits of trepanning without advising that you try it at home).
    checkY Changed to "documented". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 6: I don't see any support for he called Penicillium glaucum: the source simply gives this as the name, so our phrasing implies doubt that isn't supported by it.
    checkY Deleted "a species of mould he called" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 17: checkY checks out.
  • Note 21: we have Fleming had no training in chemistry, so he left all the chemical work to Craddock; the source has Fleming toiled for half a year to gather all the necessary experimental data, and that most of the chemical experiments were done by his research assistant Craddock and his once scholar Frederick Ridley... Fleming ... once commented: "I am a bacteriologist, not a chemist.". That's really quite different on both key points.
    checkY Changed to "Fleming was a bacteriologist, not a chemist, chemistry, so he left most of the chemical work to Craddock." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's chemistry doing in the middle there? We could perhaps have ...considered himself a bacteriologist..., given that, by training, Fleming was a medical doctor, which is in many ways an applied chemist and not quite a bacteriologist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. Most know very little about chemistry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 23: could I have the direct quote to support As he and Daniel Merlin Pryce, his former research scholar, examined the culture plates, they found one with an open lid and the culture contaminated with a blue-green mould. In the contaminated plate the bacteria around the mould did not grow, while those farther away grew normally, meaning that the mould killed the bacteria?

    It happened that in 1928 I was engaged in a bacteriological research on staphylococci and when for examination purposes I had to remove the covers of my culture plates a mould spore drifted on to a plate. After a time it revealed itself by developing into a colony about half an inch across. It was no new thing for a bacteriologist to find that a mould had grown on a culture plate which had lain on the bench for a week, but the strange thing in this particular case was that the bacterial colonies in the neighbourhood of the mould appeared to be fading away. What had a week before been vigorous staphylococcus colonies were now faint shadows of their former selves. I might have merely discarded the contaminated culture plate as I had done contaminated plates before, but fortunately my previous research work on antiseptics and on naturally occurring antibacterial substances caused me to take special notice of the apparent antibacterial action of the mould.

    Hare began this series of letters by doubting that the translucent colonies observed by Fleming and Pryce were in fact lysed. In his reply, Pryce emphasized that the colonies were both fully grown and lysed, and he suggested to Hare that there was no point in attempting a reconstruction of the famous plate until these facts were taken on board. In a subsequent letter Pryce returned to this point as follows: "Nobody believes that Penicillin lyses staphylococci and I do not for one moment believe that the lysis about the mould was due to Penicillin, but lysis of those colonies there most certainly was. Flem. and I looked at the plate and I thought to myself that the lysis was due to a change of pH, but what I actually said was 'that's how you discovered lysozyme'.

    I'm not seeing anything for meaning that the mould killed the bacteria: the second quote seems to imply that at least Pryce believed that it wasn't the penicillin that killed the bacteria. If these direct quotations are the source, MOS:PRIMARY would prefer a secondary source to confirm them, at least for the interpretation of why what they observed happened. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. These are secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 37: We have This story was regarded as a fact and was popularised in literature: the closest I can find in the source is the story obtained wide publicity, which doesn't indicate that it was accepted as a fact, or indeed specify where it was repeated.
    checkY It does: "he story obtained wide publicity following its repetition by Maurois in his biography". And people keep repeating it [2][3]. Deleted "This story was regarded as a fact and was popularised in literature".
    Yes: obtained wide publicity is not the same as was accepted as fact (the JFK assassination conspiracies have obtained wide publicity). Similarly, following its repetition by Maurois in his biography says that it was repeated once in writing, and says nothing about where it was subsequently popularised: it could have been spread by word of mouth from people who read that book. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 39: checkY checks out.
  • Note 47: checkY checks out.
  • Notes 53 and 54: could I have the direct quote(s) here for The Oxford team's first task was to obtain a sample of penicillin mould. This turned out to be easy. Margaret Campbell-Renton, who had worked with Georges Dreyer, Florey's predecessor, revealed that Dreyer had been given a sample of the mould by Fleming in 1930 for his work on bacteriophages, viruses that infect bacteria. Dreyer had lost all interest in penicillin when he discovered that it was not a bacteriophage?
    Hobby:

    Strangely, penicillin had first been produced at the Sir William Dunn School in 1930 - five years before Florey moved to Oxford. George Dreyer, Florey's predecessor, had been interested in bacteriophages - viruses with specific affinity for bacteria that are found in association with essentially all groups of bacteria and blue-green algae. In 1929 he had seen Fleming's paper on penicillin and had obtained a reprint of the article and a culture of the mould. He soon showed that Fleming's Penicillium notatum was not a carrier of bacteriophage, but he continued to grow the mould and use it to obtain plaques of a standard size for quantitation of other bacteriophages. Miss Campbell-Renton, who was associated with Dreyer for many years, had continued this work after his death. Fleming's contaminant thus was cultured in the department at Oxford from 1930 on

    Wilson:

    The Sir William Dunn School of Pathology possessed examples of Fleming's strain of Penicillium notatum. This was a strange coincidence, because Chain certainly discovered Fleming's work by reading the literature and not by any knowledge of previous work at Oxford. But the fact that the mould was in their possession undoubtedly led them to choose penicillin as one of the starting points for their grand survey of microbial antagonism. The mould was in Oxford because Florey's predecessor, George Dreyer, had been working on bacteriophage at the time of Fleming's original observation and had wondered whether penicillin was an example of bacteriophage. Bacteriophage, now known to exist in many different strains and types, is a virus which infects and kills bacteria. As soon as Dreyer found out that penicillin was nothing like a bacteriophage he stopped studying it. There is a story about Chain in his first days at Oxford having bumped into a laboratory assistant carrying a tray of flasks and asking what was in the flasks. When he read Fleming's paper he remembered the incident in the corridor and went to the laboratory of Miss Margaret Campbell-Renton, who had been Dreyer's assistant, and got the mould from her.

    Williams:

    By a strange coincidence this was already available in the laboratory. Dreyer, Florey’s predecessor, had been interested in a class of bacteriolytic agents, known as bacteriophages, discovered by Frederick Twort in 1915. He thought that Fleming’s penicillin might be some kind of bacteriophage and in 1929 had obtained a culture of the mould; this had been maintained at Oxford ever since by Miss Campbell-Renton. According to Heatley, Vollum said that he had ‘played about’ with P. notatum and his culture may have been independently obtained. There was thus no occasion for any direct request to be made to Fleming, who consequently was not aware of renewed interest in his mould.

    I'd remove this turned out to be easy: it's not directly supported by the sources (as I can see) and is definitely on the line for verifiability. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. How much easier can it be than walking down the corridor? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 61: similar for It was not known why the mould produced penicillin, as the bacteria penicillin kills are no threat to the mould; it was conjectured that it was a byproduct of metabolic processes for other purposes

    Why the mould produces penicillin at all is still obscure: the common pathogenic organisms— so deadly to man— are scarcely a threat to its existence in nature. The supposition is that it is no more than the casual end product of some metabolic process important for other reasons, much as some plants produce highly toxic substances, like strychnine and nicotine, which are not demonstrably useful to them.

    checkY That checks nicely.
  • Note 70: I don't see anything here to support but they were able to produce only small quantities, or for the date of 1941. They mention that they produced 450–500 Oxford units per mg, but that's a measure of efficiency, not absolute quantity.
    checkY Added missing reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I have the supporting material from the new reference for this phrase? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 218: I really can't make this one check out on the "cure all ailments" front, and see my objections re. the status of doctors in the relevant section above. Could you provide the direct quotation, if I've missed it?
    checkY Been rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good on "The misplaced faith in antibiotics had serious consequences."

I'm going to stop there for now: there's quite a bit in that first tranche that needs addressing, and we can then look at another batch once those are fixed or clarified. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review template

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_penicillin/GA1&oldid=1165165661"