Talk:Propylhexedrine

GA Review #1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Propylhexedrine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 16:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey AryKun,

Just checking in. How’s the article look?

Thanks,

JoeBo82 JoeBo82 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Failed

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 25, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: n

2. Verifiable?: y

3. Broad in coverage?: n

4. Neutral point of view?: y

5. Stable?: y

6. Images?: y

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

• I am inclined towards failing the article at this time due to a lack of thoroughness, dense prose that is not clear to a lay audience, and more importantly, a lack of compliance with WP:MEDRS.
• The sections on recreational abuse are sourced almost entirely to decades-old primary reports instead of newer literature review such as 1 and 2 (same authors for both papers, and more or less the same content). Additionally, there are a number of questionable sources such as cornucopeia.cn, misrepresented sources such as a Merriam-Webster definition for alkylamine citing propylhexedrine being a alkylamine, and the overall issue of the median age of sources appearing to be sometime around the 1980's.
• The prose is also dense and incomprehensible to a lay audience: I don't think the article should require anything beyond a perhaps advanced high school level of chemistry and biology to understand. The Interactions, Mechanism of action, Synthesis, and Detection in bodily fluids are very heavy in advanced terms with almost no effort to explain what, for example, a sympathomimetic is.
• You are free to nominate the article again after addressing the issues raised above or if you disagree with my review. AryKun (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review #2

Passed

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Propylhexedrine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to be reviewing this article. There have been major improvements to the text since the last GA nomination, but not everything has been addressed; hopefully that can be taken care of through the course of this review. I'm still working on reviewing sources and getting a full grasp on the prose corrections needed. Reconrabbit 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Summarily, as defined Merriam Webster, means the following: “In a few words”. It is no different then stating ‘in summation’ or ‘briefly put’. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Addressed the lead section and interactions. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of the word is understood. It's just an unusual construction to see in the encyclopedia style. Thank you for addressing the points noted here. Reconrabbit 16:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

With respect to source [30], that is racemic. Generally, a drug product in the U.S. is assumed racemic or such unless otherwise indicated. See cetirizine (Zyretc) and levcetirizine (Xyzal). One is indicated simply as cetirizine, while the other is specifically indicated as levcetirizine. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand now. Corrected. Reconrabbit 23:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In regard to the matter of contraindications, I would say that the statement "Talk with the doctor before you give this drug to a child younger than 6 years old" is a contraindication. Generally, the entire point of an OTC drug is that it doesn't need physician supervision to administer. Perhaps, it could be reworded as "Propylhexedrine is not recommended in individuals younger than six years of age." Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The oral tablet preparation is Obesin, an image thereof is shown in the Brand Names subheader. There it states the dose is 25mg. Since I cannot find much more about Obesin, I have corrected it. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

All items that are of concern to this review have been addressed. Thank you for your work (and your patience, sorry about the delay!) Reconrabbit 19:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "Summarily" and the surrounding information summarizing the quotations above it isn't necessary. The main use of the phrase summarily on Wikipedia is in reference to summary execution, something I found trying to find other uses. Otherwise, understandable prose with the text only becoming technical when necessary.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section is extremely short and does not incorporate most of the relevant information from the article. Some things to include would be the history of the drug, possibly some preparation methods and society and culture information. Pseudoephedrine is a decent model of a similar decongestant with a better lead.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): {{GAList/check|?}

   Source check: (numbering based on this revision)

   • [1] Y
   • [2] Y
   • [3] Y Delivered dose amount is not indicated. Replaced with [30] which contains this information.
   • [4] Y Dose size and oral tablet preparation is not mentioned.
   • [7] Y
   • [9] Y Does "Talk with the doctor before you give this drug to a child younger than 6 years old." mean the same thing as "contraindicated"?
   • [11] Y
   • [12] Y
   • [13] Y
   • [14] Y
   • [15] Y (though only based on abstract)
   • [18] Y
   • [19] Y Cannot confirm that this supports the entirety of the "Interactions" section.  Done
   • [26] Y
   • [27] Y
   • [30] Y Does not indicate the active ingredient is racemic.
   • [34] Y
   • [35] Y
   • [42] Y
   • [45] Y
   • [76] Y
   • [81] Y
   • [82] Y

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Some quotes are a little long, but the FDA and IHA have no copyright on their work, which makes it less of a concern. I don't know what the status of the Army website is.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The photo of propylhexedrine HCl is of very low quality and also causes a WP:SANDWICH issue with the structure image on the other side of the page (though this isn't a huge issue). The same problem appears with Glenn E. Ullyot and the inhaler image and the photos of containers at the Brand Names header. It may be for the best if all of the product images are moved to the left and a {{Clear}} template is added at the end of "Eventin".

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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.

Discussion of base

"Freebase propylhexedrine is a volatile, oily liquid at room temperature. The slow evaporation of freebase propylhexedrine allows it to be administered via inhalation. The evaporation of the freebase also accounts for the limited shelf-life of propylhexedrine inhalers. Many of the salts of propylhexedrine are stable, clear to off-white crystalline substances that readily dissolve in water." I cannot verify this passage in ref:

• [32] US granted 4095596, Grayson M, "Nasal Inhaler", issued 20 June 1978, assigned to Smithkline Corp
• [33] Mancusi-Ungaro HR, Decker WJ, Forshan VR, Blackwell SJ, Lewis SR (1983). "Tissue injuries associated with parenteral propylhexedrine abuse". Journal of Toxicology. Clinical Toxicology. 21 (3): 359–372. doi:10.1097/00005373-198307000-00114. PMID 6144800.

Mongrangvebet (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The first reference serves to prove that propylhexedrine gradually escapes from an inhaler, which gives a standard nasal inhaler with it as the active ingredient a limited shelf-life. The second indicates that the ingredient is "relatively pure propylhexedrine hydrochloride" which is freebase propylhexedrine. It also demonstrates that the salt was soluble in water. I don't know if there is an indication of the color and solubility of other salts, since it looks like that second reference may be longer than the abstract I can see? Reconrabbit 14:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The second ref ([33]) (free accessed) links to page 650. It should link to page 359–372. I recommend use this ref <ref>{{Cite journal|vauthors=Mancusi-Ungaro HR, Decker WJ, Forshan VR, Blackwell SJ, Lewis SR |year=1983 |title=Tissue injuries associated with parenteral propylhexedrine abuse |journal=Journal of Toxicology. Clinical Toxicology |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=359–372 |doi=10.1097/00005373-198307000-00114 |pmid=6144800}}</ref> Mongrangvebet (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Recreational use

I see this is coming up in the routes of administration. I'm not personally aware of any contemporary preparations of propylhexedrine that are available in any form other than an inhalant. Not to say that an inhaler couldn't be tampered with to be administered in a different way. Since the infobox should reflect the full text of the article, it should be trivial to find a reference under the recreational use header to justify describing the routes of recreational administration as "oral, parenteral". As it is I can only find references that recommend against using any route other than inhalation and not any specific ones. Or am I missing something? Reconrabbit 12:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There are references under the "Recreational use" that describe recreational use as including intravenous means, such as the aptly titled "Intravenous Abuse of Propylhexedrine (Benzedrex®) and the Risk of Brainstem Dysfunction in Young Adults" reference currently cited as reference [65] on the page. In addition, reference [21] mentions the following: "There have been many reports of toxicity associated with propylhexedrine extracted from an inhaler and swallowed or injected. Swallowing the contents of one propylhexedrine inhaler has caused heart attack and lung injury in adults and children [emphasis added]." The reason there are not citations in the infobox is mainly for convenience, as editing such citations in the infobox is more cumbersome than simply editing them in the article body where it is relevant. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So I did miss that. I've never thought about breaking open an inhaler to get at the stuff inside, but there are a lot of things I haven't tried. Hopefully the infobox argument can be put to rest. Reconrabbit 12:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge by virtue of being an uncontroversial technical merge. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Proposing merger of barbexaclone, levopropylhexedrine, and norpropylhexedrine with this article. All three have been total nothing-burger stubs for years. There is nothing on those articles which isn't better described on this article Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for norpropylhexedrine and barbexaclone; support for levopropylhexedrine. Norpropylhexedrine is a different compound so should not be merged into this article to avoid confusion. Barnexaclone is a mixture of two compounds, and while it is already discussed in this article with more content than in the stub, it is otherwise not clear why it makes sense to merge here instead of Phenobarbital. Many drugs that are mixtures of two or more active compounds have their own articles, and I think a better solution in this case would be to add content to the stub. In both cases, just having a stub with infobox is a fine endpoint; not all stubs make sense to be merged into larger articles. As for levopropylhexedrine, it is common for enantiomers to be discussed in a single article about the racemate (especially drugs), which would make sense here. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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.