Talk:Propylhexedrine/GA1

GA Review #1

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

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

Hey AryKun,

Just checking in. How’s the article look?

Thanks,

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

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)[reply]