Talk:Mephedrone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse, I've signed up for this review. I remember reading Kinetic's posts on The Hive all those years ago, and was pleasantly surprised to see this appear at GAN. The review may take me up to a week, as stuff is piling up on my Wiki-plate. Sasata (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's got to be the quickest ever someone has signed up to review an article! It's a pity that all of The Hive's archives are dead so we can't link to it. I did just find a copy of what they posted in a much better reference than Vice though so I'll add that to the article. Suddenly you being the mushroom expert makes a lot more sense. Smartse (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the delay, I'm on vacation, and was expecting to be able to work on this during my trip. However, the hotel internet connections have been spotty, with frequent disconnections. I will post my full review on Monday. Sasata (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, questions, and suggestions

Y"According to the EMCDDA" probably best to spell out the acronym the first time it's used in the article
Y"They posted on the site…" why "they"?
Y"Their research suggests that the drug first became available in 2007." Clarify "became available" - on the street?
is a pounds to dollar conversion required? Not sure what the conventions are in these cases

Per Wikipedia:MOS#Currencies I think it is ok as it is. Smartse (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"…with it being freely available at music festivals, head shops and on the internet." suggest "freely" swapped with "readily"
Y"Whilst the evidence is anecdotal, researchers, charity workers, teachers and users have ~~all~~ reported"
Y"The drug's rapid growth in popularity was believed to be related to both its availability and legality." Statements claiming that something "was believed" should be cited directly or else it sounds weaselly
Y"Criminologists also believe" all of them?
Y"97% of users said" Don't begin sentences with a number
Y"On 30 March 2010, Alan Johnson announced" who?
Y"Consequently, the mephedrone debate has led to a general questioning of UK drugs policy." Source?

Removed - can't find a source for this. Smartse (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"which has been found to contain MDPV which was made illegal at the same time as ephedrine." repetitive which
Y"When tested, some products sold 6 weeks" 6->six says
Y"According to the company Crew2000" who?

It's actually a charity as well as a company, I've changed this to "According to the drugs advice charity, Crew2000,". Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"The study was scrapped in August 2010" scrapped -> discontinued (more neutral, encyclopaedic tone imo)
Y"According to the Darlington Drug and Alcohol Action Team…" who?

I changed this to "According to drugs counsellors on Teesside, UK,". Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YI noticed when reading the side effects section that other than the lead, it's not explicitly stated how the drug is taken; I assume at least a couple of those side effects only occur when the drug is taken nasally

I've clarified this by moving nose burns + nose bleeds to a separate section. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yteeth grinding is called bruxism in the history section, while in the side effects section its called "gunning", with a link to bruxism

I've changed all of these to teeth grinding, as this is the most understandable and least slangy term. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"The charity Lifeline recommends" who are these people and why should we care about their recommendations?

Changed to "The drugs advice charity". Think this is sufficient. (we should really have an article on them as they are "one of the oldest non-statutory, non-residential drugs agencies in the UK"). Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Writing in the British Medical Journal, psychiatrists stated" how do we know they are psychiatrists?

Two of the authors are from the "Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London," Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption: "Proposed scheme for mephedrone metabolism" A more informative caption would be appreciated here, aimed more at the general reader.

I've expanded it to explain it is based on the analysis of urine, is it better now? Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"At present, nothing is known about the potential neuro-toxicity of ephedrine." The rest of the section contradicts this initial statement. Perhaps change "nothing" to "little"; might want to reword to avoid using the quickly out-datable phrase "At present". Should neurotoxicity be hyphenated?

I've clarified it by adding "as of March 2010" the source states "we know nothing of its potential neurotoxicity" so I think it is best to keep nothing, rather than little. I've been keeping an eye on publications and there still haven't been any reports of the effects of mephedrone on neurons. Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point about it being contradicted by the rest of the paragraph, but the rest is mainly based on what people expect could be possible, rather than what has been found through experiments. Maybe we could change the first sentence to something like "there have been no reported studies on the neurotoxicity of mephedrone". Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the statement to your suggestion, as I think it's a more accurate reflection of reality. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"They were treated…" why "they"; wasn't it just one case?
"0.2 g of mephedrone orally and 3.8 g subcutaneously." Eh? How is the drug taken subcutaneously?

Good question! The source states "Case report: A 22 year old man presented after oral ingestion of 200mg and subcutaneous injection of 3.8g of 4-MMC." This is an abstract from a conference, so I'll try to see if this has been written up properly. Smartse (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look to see if this has been published properly but can't find anything on google scholar. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Both enantiomers of methcathinone, which differs only in the lack of the methyl group on the aryl ring when compared to mephedrone has been shown to be toxic to rat dopamine neurones" grammar needs fixing
Y"Gibbons and Zloh of The School of Pharmacy, University of London state" Other academics have so far been referred to by their first and last names; state->stated
Y"Mephedrone has been implicated in the death of a 22 year old male, who had also taken heroin. Mephedrone was found in his blood at a concentration of 0.50 mg/L and in his urine at a concentration of 198 mg/L." what was the heroin concentration?

I've added it, it's actually the [morphine] as heroin is deacetylated by the body. It was 0.06 mg/L - I'm not sure if this is high or not. Smartse (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a ref stating what the average [morphine] is in overdoses where only heroin has been used for comparison. Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y"It has a distinct strong odour." of what?

This is uncertain... This (already referenced) states "mephedrone is characterised by a distinctive, unpleasant odour (vanilla and bleach, stale urine, electric circuit boards)" but itself references websites selling it. Other references say it is fishy, others like glue or solvents. AFAICT the odours may well be due to impurities rather than mephedrone itself. What do you think would be the best way to deal with it? Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YI think all of the legal status snippets should be complete sentences.
YThe "See also" section could be trimmed by removing links already used in the article

Personally, I'm not sure whether the others really belong here either. Any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check sources and other bibliographic details during my next readthrough after you've had a chance to address the above. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply after first read through

Thanks for the first read through, hopefully I've addressed those points now. I'm not sure about the ones I haven't ticked so if you could take a look and make any more comments that would be useful. I've made a stab at the lead now as well (should have got round to that ages ago!) but if you think anything else should be mentioned in it, please let me know. I'm a little unsure about what to do about the Mephedrone#Side_effects; the first two sources used at the moment aren't exactly ideal but they are at least qualified as to who has reported them. There are other sources I could use but these again are not ideal - the EMCDDA report (ref 1) has a long list of side effects, but these are anecdotal and it warns that they may not be reliable. A paper just came out - doi:10.1136/emj.2010.096636 (think it's free) which lists some side effects noted in hospitals, but is based on a sample of 131 so again this isn't exactly ideal as only 7 symptoms were reported by >10% of users. Do you have any suggestions on which would be the best sources to use? Smartse (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great improvements so far! I will think about these things and get back to you after I read through the article again (hopefully no longer than a couple of days). Sasata (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smartse, how do you feel about an FAC for this article? I think it's pretty close already in terms of coverage and general scholarship, but the reference formatting could use some tweaking for consistency. List-defined refs would be nice too... Let me know is this is something you'd be interested in, I could help give it a shove in that direction. Otherwise I'll just stick to the GA criteria, and we'd be done pretty quickly :) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it had crossed my mind but I'd thought we'd need to know some proper details on its pharmacology first. Having had a look at the criteria I can see that this shouldn't actually matter, so if you think it has a chance of passing then I'd definitely be up for it. I agree the refs are a bit messy, how would you suggest they are changed? I'm not quite sure what the benefit of list-defined refs are either and WP:LDR isn't particularly illuminating. Smartse (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the bulk of referencing has already been done (it has), LDR lets us put all the refs into one section so they are easier to maintain, modify, and ensure the formatting is consistent. It also makes the article text easier to edit (by removing all the lengthy references that disrupt the flow of text). All citations should also be in templates as well (not strictly necessary, but makes things easier if all are consistent). I will convert to LDR tonight as I go through the refs individually, or let me know if you're dying to do it yourself :) Sasata (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I'm not sure what the grouping part at LDR is about though... Could you give me an example of an article with the same format so I can take a look? I don't mind making a start on it myself (since I created the mess!), how long is it until your "tonight" begins? Smartse (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Suillus brevipes to see LDR in action. My tonight will begin about 10 hours from now. Sasata (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've sorted out LDR, I haven't fixed all of the reference formats - that'll have to wait for another day. Sorting them alphabetically by hand was not particularly fun, especially when the internet connection dies just as you click save! Smartse (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm slowly making my way through the refs, checking facts and tweaking formatting. Here's some stuff that came up. More tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YI cannot see where any part of the following sentence "Reported side effects suggest mephedrone may cause pronounced peripheral vasoconstriction, and consequently it has been speculated that some metabolites may be potent vasoconstrictors, as the compound 4-methylephedrine which is closely related to some mephedrone metabolites, is known to be a vasoconstrictor with significantly more cardiovascular toxicity than ephedrine itself" is mentioned in current ref #2

I've removed this. I had removed it before, but Meodipt replaced it. I've had a look to see if I can find a source for it but without any luck. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YI noticed there's a cite doi template used for Winstock et al. 2010, which has the convenience of doing all the citation stuff for you, but with the disadvantage that you're stuck with the output (unless you mess with the template). If you like the output for author names (eg. Winstock, A.; Mitcheson, L.; Deluca, P.; Davey, Z.; Corazza, O.; Schifano, F.) then it's ok, but all of the other refs should be made consistent with that format.

I've taken all the info out of the cite dois and put them in the article. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiton's Pharmacopeia will simply not fly as a RS

Ok, do you think it is ok to say that it remained an obscure product of academia until 2004, based on only the druglink article? I like this wording but it isn't explicitly stated in the druglink article. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YThe Druglink magazine sources should be put into journal citation templates, with authors given and page ranges

Thanks for the comments, I haven't got much time over the next few days to sort it out and am on a netbook which struggles with large pages. If you can carry on making a list of problems I'll sort them out on Monday. Smartse (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it'll take me a while to get through all the refs anyways. Sasata (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked up to reference #80. Will do the rest tomorrow.
the document from current ref #69 (Sumnall, Harry; Olivia Wooding. "Mephedrone Briefing". North West Public Health Observatory. http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=614. Retrieved 18 March 2010.) downloads as ".aspx" format, which my computer doesn't know what to do with.. this format should be indicated in the template, or even better (is possible), the source replaced

Can you check this again? It opens as a pdf for me eventually, but the first time I tried it didn't work. I can probably find a different source like a newspaper, but thought this is more reliable. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't work for me, but that's probably to do with the file type not being recognizable to Mac. I'll take your word for it :) Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some foreign-language sources have uninformative citations that don't tell much about the document, e.g. "Svensk författningssamling"; it would be worthwhile to get someone to help translate enough so that a proper cite template could be used (The Leftorium might be able to help in this instance) Sasata (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get onto The Leftorium to see if they can do the Swedish ones and pester my friend to do the German and Hungarian ones. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in general, formatting of author names should be made consistent.
I've been changing accessdates to year-mo-day as I go through them, and left the publishing dates the same, but someone at FAC will inevitably want them all the same format.
It's difficult to gauge the reliability of some of the foreign language sites. Any extra information to fill in the cite templates would be helpful. I'm not concerned about it too much for GA, but it might come up later.
Ythe site Salvia divinorum, psilocybe mushrooms are among hallucinogenic herbs banned by gov’t looks sketchy to me… where did that info come from?

I've asked Bine Mai about this and they say it is an RS, but have found a press release from the health ministry of Romania which I will replace once they have translated the title for me. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if certain [http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/berlin/ich-verfiel-der-partydroge-meow-article961726.html German-language newssites with pictures of topless Fräuleins can be considered a RS?

This says it is Berlin's most popular tabloid so we should be careful. I think it is ok for what it references though - I looked for other mentions of mephedrone in switzerland but couldn't find any. That said it wouldn't be a major problem to lose the sentence altogether. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the article again, I see no reason to hold this up at GAN. Images all check out, most dabs have been fixed (still one at Fluoromethcathinone, wasn't sure which one that should go to). References and reference formatting are sufficient for GA, but more tweaking (and perhaps some replacements) would be required for FAC. Good job on this article, and I hope you'll take it to FAC sometime! Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful advice. I'll try to carry on working on it when I can. Personally I still think we should wait until more pharmacology is known before taking it to FAC, regardless of whether it is actually needed or not, but we'll see, if it doesn't come out soon (and it might not) then it would probably still be worth a try. Smartse (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]