Talk:Ketotifen/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I am not an expert on medical topics, so please bear with me. Fritzmann (message me) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Overall, the article does not seem to be ready for GA in its current state. In particular, there are issues with grammar and readability, verifiability and referencing, broadness and balance. The following list is not exhaustive, but includes some representative examples. For the article to become a GA, these issues would need to be fixed.

Even from a cursory sweep, there are clear "medical citation needed" tags in several places, especially in the Pharmacology section.
Many of the medical sources used are older than is desirable. WP:MEDRS states that reviews should be as close to within five years of the present day as possible. I see one from 1990, 2004, 1982 (!), 1992, and many others from the 1990s and 2000s. Most of the more recent sources are still a decade old as well. In general, these need to be updated as they are likely out of date.
Page numbers for articles are not given. Most of the cited articles are ten or more pages long, with no specific page given for claims made in the wikipedia article. This makes it incredibly difficult for reviewers and readers to verify claims that are made, which is particularly important for medical articles. For the longer cited works especially, page numbers would benefit this article immensely.
Several sections are woefully incomplete. In particular, the history, economics, and brand names sections leave much to be desired. For this article to be considered broad, those aspects would need to be fully fleshed out.
There are many issues with commas in the article. Most often, a comma will be included where it is not necessary. This reduces readability.
There are instances of strange or clunky sentence construction, such as with "There was a litigation related to ketotifen." In general, the article needs heavy copyediting.
There are weasel words (like "It was hypothesized") in the article. These are not acceptable for medical articles on Wikipedia.
Several complex subjects are missing wikilinks that would benefit the reader
In general, the article is highly technical. I know it is a perennial complaint, but I deal with it myself on the biology GAs I write. Technical terms need to be described or reworded as much as possible without reducing accuracy. A pass-through that looks for any way to do that is very much needed

I will leave the review open and on hold to give the nominator time to respond. However, if drastic changes to the article are not forthcoming, it would be better to close this nomination and re-open it when the article is ready. I have watchlisted this page, and will respond to any questions as quick as I can! Please let me know if you need anything. Fritzmann (message me) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ketotifen was patented in 1970 and came into medical use in 1976, it is quite an old medication and there is agreement among medical community on its properties that were extensively researched in its earlier years. Recently, there is little research on ketotifen. That's why some of the sources are dated back to 1980s. Your mention of WP:MEDRS requirement to use later studies suggests that if earlier research should be superseded by later ones only if later research exists (quote):

In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies

For ketotifen, some studies for 1980s, 1990s or 2000s have not been superseded, and it does not mean that they are obsolete or bad. I tried my best to find newer sources, but for certain claims newer sources do not exist, however, they were not falsified by newer studies.

Please let me know how you would have preferred:

Remove claims backed up by old sources, or
Keep the old sources if newer one do not exist, as they comply to WP:MEDRS.

As for your mentions of "medical citation needed", I immediately fixed them when you notified me of starting the review.

As for the statement that you found some sections "woefully" incomplete, I have to admit that, due to the specifics of ketotifen, which is not as widely used as drugs like aspirin, there might be limitations in the amount of information available, especially in the areas of history, economics, and brand names, therefore, your use of the word "woefully" does not seem to be appropriate unless you give solid reasoning. Could you please provide more specific guidance on what information you believe is missing or should be added to these sections? This would greatly help in improving the article. Also, if you could clarify your objections to these sections, it would be appreciated, as they currently seem to be general in nature, i.e. blanket objections.

Your other objections, on grammar and style, are more than reasonable. I can try to quickly resolve them, but I cannot quickly give page numbers for each of the source, as it is a tedious work and is not required by the rules or GA criteria: source checking for a selection of sources could have validated the claims would have been enough.

If you agree that the article could potentially pass GA with existing sources, considering their publication years, and their referencing without the page numbers, I can set all things aside and resolve the remaining issues in 2 days; otherwise, or if you wish to conclude the review sooner, I am OK if you conclude the review now as "did not pass", anyway, please consider replying to questions I've raised. Thank you for your time. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin, thanks for your reply. I am happy to perform a much closer review. However, the general critiques still stand, and it would make it much easier on me if they were addressed beforehand. In particular, it would be great the grammar and style aspects could be looked at. As for the incompleteness, several very clear questions are raised that should be answered:

Who patented the drug? Who funded its development? Who developed it?
Is ketotifen approved for medical use outside the United States and Canada? Why or why not, and where?
"Zaditor" is given as one brand name. Where is it used? Who uses it? What other brand names are there? What do the brand names mean, and why were they chosen? What information is there on the brands themselves (i.e. who sells them)?
Has anything occurred in the intervening two years since the last reference in the litigation section? This part is what made me question whether all the references in the article are the most recent possible, as something has to have happened with this case since February 2022.

Again, this is not exhaustive. It is illustrative to show that the article needs work before it is GA-eligible. In response to the MEDRS question: if newer sources absolutely do not exist, then keep the old sources. However, please check if newer ones exist wherever possible before I perform a thorough reference verification. Fritzmann (message me) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me address the issues that you've mentioned, they are more than reasonable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced that this article does not use the most recent reviews. An extremely quick check on google scholar yields a 2023 meta-analysis and review of the drug that is not even included in the article! In claims about using the drug against conjunctivitis, reports from 2014, 2013, and 2003 are used. Those are the kind of things I am talking about when referring to WP:MEDRS. Fritzmann (message me) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will address these sourcing issues ASAP. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your observation about the brand name, and now I'm replacing older sources with the newer ones. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently replacing older studies with newer ones. I also expanded the list of brand names. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest sources were related to cases of overdose, I searched and found no newer studies, although I found re-publication of the same old cases, such as a 2014 publication of 1990s cases. I used the newer publications. I will finish with all the remaining sources over the weekend. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked each of the old sources, and removed both sources and text where the claims were not essential and there were no newer sources. Where the claims were essentials, I've kept the old sources when there were no newer sources. When there were newer sources, I replaced the older sources with the newer ones. Some of the old sources that are left were related to the overdose; there were no newer sources on overdose. Apart from that, most of the older sources had the same claims in the newer sources, so I was able to update. Therefore, I've finished with the new sources. I hope that I have addressed all your issues. The claim that the drops were effective against allergic conjunctivitis is a minor claim, I used the most recent source that you suggested, however, that source could not help in removing any other sources of the older sources, and that newest meta-analysis was very narrow in scope, it only sduedied whether the drug in the ophtalmic topical form was effective or not against allergic conjunctivitis; it didn't address important issues such as pharmacodymamics, mechanisms of action, etc. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question on whether something has happened with this case since February 2022, I thought that was obvious that nothing happened because in the United States federal court system, decisions of the United States Court of Appeals are final and nothing can happen since that as the case is considered closed. Theoretically, this decision of United States Court of Appeals can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it chooses to review, and it only agrees to hear a small fraction of the cases that are appealed to it. Unless we here something from the Supreme Court of the United States, we can reliably assume that nothing happened in this case. I thought that the phrase "which affirmed the district court's judgment" was conclusive. However, you wrote that "Has anything occurred in the intervening two years since the last reference in the litigation section? This part is what made me question whether all the references in the article are the most recent possible, as something has to have happened with this case since February 2022". Since you had this question, other readers may have the same question too.

After the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on 7 February 2022 in the case of Edward C. Hanks vs Ned Hubbard, the decision could potentially be contested further. The next step in the appeals process would typically be to petition the Supreme Court of the United States. However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it chooses to review, and it only agrees to hear a small fraction of the cases that are appealed to it.

Please let me emphasize a few points:

A party who loses in a federal court of appeals may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari", which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case, see https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
The Supreme Court has the discretion to decide whether it should review a case under the Certiorari Act of 192534. This means that the Supreme Court is not required to hear a specific case on appeal. See https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. This means that the Supreme Court grants about 2 percent of these petitions each year.
The Supreme Court of the United States maintains a docket system that contains information about cases, both pending and decided, that have been filed at the Court. Users can search for the docket in a particular case by using a Supreme Court docket number, a case name, or other words or numbers included on a docket report. I searched and didn't find anything related to Edward C. Hanks or Ned Hubbard in the docket search. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin, thanks for your diligence! I'm working through a full review now; it should be done sometime this weekend. Fritzmann (message me) 17:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how should I proceed with the "Litigation":

keep as is
delete the subsection
add explanation abut the supreme court
some other variant

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it seems that I overlooked the following of your observations: (1) Who patented the drug? Who funded its development? Who developed it? (2) Is ketotifen approved for medical use outside the United States and Canada? Why or why not, and where?

Let me address them in a couple of days. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article with this data today. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin, I've been watching the page and you've been continuing to improve a lot of the things I would comment on in a second review sweep. Let me know when you are finished and I can give it another look at any time! Fritzmann (message me) 01:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back! I am generally satisfied with the article, except with the section "Society and culture". Each of its subsections, namely, Economisc, Brand names and Litigation raised my concern. I don't want to be US-centric (just for your information, I live in Moldova). I didn't know how to do that, but occasionally ideas come and I do edits, for brand names I asked advice in the Wikipedia Teahouse.

There is always room for improvement; still, my understanding of the GA process is that it is lightweight and should check if the the GA criteria are statisfied at there bare minimum. The article is ready at the moment, but it is a live organism and can always be improved. Can you please anytime, even now, check whether the article satisifies the GA criteria on their mimimum, and, if not, give me this mandatory list of what I should fix to satisify the criteria, so we could finish the review ASAP? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002 -- let me please stop editing the article. Can you please check it now to figure out whether it fully satisfies the GA criteria or not and make a decision (if there will be minor things that are easy to fix to satisfy - let me know I will fix quickly). Thank you in advance. I really want to get the review completed ASAP, as we generally have to make reviews completed in 7 days or less. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please also change the status of the article review from "On hold" to "Review", since I believe that I improved the article enough and don't plan to do any more change until you complete the review or tell me that I should quickly improve something that does not fit the GA criteria. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]