Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week/Successful nominations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archived list of successful WP:RxCOTW articles.

Aspirin

[edit]
Nominated at 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC); Selected as WP:RxCOTW on September 5, 2007. Received 7 votes. Removed on September 19, 2007.

Already well developed, lots of material and colour so not just a dry pharma article. A good one to get started with.

Support

  1. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dr. Cash 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kyoko 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bilz0r 09:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  7. Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Muscle relaxant

[edit]

{{RxCOTW}}

Nominated on 1 September 2007; Selected as WP:RxCOTW on September 19, 2007. Scheduled removal on October 2, 2007.

While I agree that there is work to be done on specific drug articles, I think the articles on drug classes should be more robust. This article is essentially a stub with a few laundry lists, and the talk page is fraught with discussions of inaccuracy, so this could be a candidate for a complete rewrite. I would like to see information on their mechanism(s) of action, pharmokinetics, sub-types, etc.

Support

  1. Steve carlson 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dr. Cash 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Scientizzle 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm supporting this because I agree with the original assessment; most of the 'top' importance articles in this WP should be categories of drugs and such, as opposed to simply drug articles. Dr. Cash 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well-put - this same thing happens everywhere as teh individual species are more fun to work with in WP:birds, dinos , fungi and others I've been involved with (my id says species, while my superego chides and tries to push toward more global articles...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably need more work than the others, but let's not shy away from a challenge :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paracetamol

[edit]
Nominated 1 September 2007 (UTC); Selected as WP:RxCOTW on October 3, 2007. Received 5 votes. Removed on October 16, 2007.

FA since 2004 - I recall some having concerns it could do with some sprucing up to bring it up on par with others. A few folk involved with FAs would be mightily relieved to see it have a dose of spring cleaning

Support

  1. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kyoko 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Colin°Talk 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A significant number of featured articles have issues with under-citing, prose, formatting, layout and comprehensiveness - the main reason this hasn't been nominated at FAR is chance only. An alternate view is to focus effort on ensuring as many FAs as possible meet the standards. In any case, I figured a cleanup was good to get the ball rolling...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Use the force (Talk * Contribs)
  • It is as important to maintain our FAs as it is to push for new ones. Unsupported, these articles have a tendency to deteriorate. IMO, a FAR nomination would represent a failure of this WikiProject. However, it may be worth inviting regular FAR contributors to comment in order to best focus any improvement drive. Colin°Talk 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Receptor antagonist

[edit]
Nominated on September 19, 2007; Selected as WP:RxCOTW on October 17, 2007. Received 7 votes. Removed on January 14, 2008.
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Goodleh 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dr. Cash 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lilypink 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. David Ruben Talk 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (import for the subject and therefore this project (not my strongest area of knowledge, but happy to help out)[reply]
  6. Vlabakje90 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrazyChemGuy 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Melatonin

[edit]
Nominated on October 1, 2007; Selected as WP:RxCOTW on January 14, 2008. Received 6 votes.
Support
  1. Colin°Talk 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Scientizzle 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GodGnipael°Talk 00:22, 3 October 2007
  5. David Ruben Talk 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bilz0r 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An important hormone, health supplement and unlicensed medication. The article suffers from being a random collection of (often anonymous or newbie) contributions. It has neutrality issues and intermingles well-established science with speculative research. It may also suffer from editor-extrapolation of animal research into humans. We are the #1 Google result for melatonin yet the content doesn't deserve that status at present. Colin°Talk 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Colin said, this is the top Google result for melatonin. Additionally, the article is an absolute mess and needs expert attention so it can be properly rewritten. GodGnipael°Talk 00:22, 3 October 2007
  • Lots of research primary source papers, but are there good recent secondary sources (given WP:MOS prefers secondary to primary, vs WP:MEDMOS leaning more to primary) on where the mainstream opinion is going with this substance (ie promising extensive medical role, or small-time curiosity) ? Or is the jury still out and wikipedia, in its way of following behind developments, needs to come back to this in a few years time ? David Ruben Talk 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sorry about being off-topic) Neither WP:MOS nor WP:MEDMOS suggest sources as they are style guides. However, WP:MEDRS is fairly clear in preferring reliable secondary sources (if it isn't, we need to do something about it). As far as I can see, WP's main policies and guidelines seem to have shifted into neutral wrt primary vs secondary and point out where care must be taken when using either. Colin°Talk 07:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that WP:MEDRS is not a guideline, even a proposed one, and so one does not have to follow it. Paul gene 11:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theobromine

[edit]
Nominated on January 14, 2008; Selected as WP:RxCOTM on March 4, 2008. Received 5 votes.
Support
  1. MessedRocker (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bilz0r 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dr. Cash 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am effectively renominating this article on January 14, 2008, as we resurrect the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month in 2008. Previously, there were four votes, so this extends the deadline for the article now. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Warfarin

[edit]
Nominated on February 19, 2008; Selected as WP:RxCOTM on June 16, 2008. Received 4 votes.
Support
  1. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Medos (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Scientizzle 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Barbiturate

[edit]
Nominated on June 2, 2008; Selected as WP:RxCOTM on July 7, 2008. Received 4 votes.
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is high-importance, but lacks sources, reads poorly, and is littered with WP:OR. — Scientizzle 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of current medical interest (e.g. thiopental), as well as a large historical angle wrt anticonvulsant and analgesic use.

Sildenafil

[edit]

{{RxCOTW}}

Support
  1. JFW | T@lk 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Scientizzle 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CCG (T-C) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Collaboration_of_the_Week/Successful_nominations&oldid=1146694513"