Talk:Adderall/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that this review has been taken earlier and deleted, so I'll have this one up within 48 hours. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 16:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * The prose in this article is generally very good. However I notice a concern of WP:OVERLINK problems, especially in the lead section. Obvious terms such as performance and fast heartbeat could be unlinked
 * ✅ - pruned 2 others I thought were unnecessary as well


 * Is it OK for most parts of this article to be transcluded from Amphetamine?
 * This isn't done often, so there isn't a policy governing the way article-article transclusions are applied. The only reason I did this is because there's so much content overlap between amphetamine, adderall, dextroamphetamine, and lisdexamfetamine (each of which is notable in its own right) that I decided it was simpler to just update 1 page instead of all 4 whenever I needed to change something common to all pages.  Nonetheless, there's actually a quite a few of if pagename templates in the source code of amphetamine that tailors the transcluded text to each article, where appropriate (for example, the first sentence of medical uses in each article).  Adderall has the most content overlap with amphetamine, so I decided to write this article as a simpler, more lay-readable version of that article in the more technical sections (primarily pharmacology; the addiction sections also differ a little to improve accessibility in this article - Adderall has a glossary of terms, while Amphetamine has a very technical signal transduction diagram.


 * More overlinking in the Contraindications section; depression and blood pressure could be lost. Also, it would be best to explain that "severely elevated blood pressure" is hypertension in this section


 * "Addiction is a serious risk" - I would unlink addiction and refer it to something like "increase of substance dependence" in order to extend prose
 * I deleted the "substance dependence" text and replaced it with Drug addiction for consitency with the addiction glossary terms. I've recently started standardizing the mixed terminology involving dependence/addiction in various addiction articles for reasons I noted at the end of this thread: WT:MED. Funny how I didn't notice it here. :P


 * "Adderall has been banned in the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA)" - some of these could be linked?
 * ✅ - linked all 3


 * "ΔFosB also plays an important role in regulating behavioral responses to natural rewards, such as palatable food, sex, and exercise" - natural rewards?
 * I wikilinked the term, though I can also indicate that these refer to behaviors if you think it's worth doing so. Natural rewards are simply rewarding behaviors (these were named as such to make a distinction between drug rewards - the "unnatural" kind - and behavioral rewards)


 * "The effects of amphetamine on gene regulation are both dose- and route-dependent" - hyphens should be removed here
 * The phrase "dose-dependent" is typically hyphenated (the source cited in that sentence follows this convention), I merely hyphenated route since I assume it follows the same grammar rule. I don't really care about how the sentence is written though, so if you prefer I can just rephrase it as "dependent upon dose and route of administration" or the like.


 * "The maximum penalty for unauthorized possession is 5 years in prison" - would put this as five (for figures lower than ten)

Thanks for being thorough!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 18:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

On hold
I have to admit I'm not well versed on the subject of prescription drugs but from a copyediting point of view this article is well written, comprehensive and other than the fact of most of it being trascluded from amphetamine it is near GA material. I am also not sure why the last GAR was cancelled, but in its current form there seem to be few problems. The points I mentioned above were only technical and minor, so I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until those have been addressed. Thanks, ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
thanks for addressing them! I agree with you and am relieved regarding the transclusion with amphetamine, there is no problem with any policy on any overlap of information. In fact it is better that one article contains so much information instead of having four articles contain the same amount of content. The prose in this article was already very good which explains the review being on the short side. It's comprehensive, well written, well references and stable. The images are also interesting. Regarding the phrase "dose-dependent", if it's ok I'll leave it to you what you think is best? Anyway, well done on the GA ☠  Jag  uar  ☠ 20:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)