Talk:Amlexanox/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First impression is that this article is very brief for a GA; this is reinforced by the presence of Stub markers and the very short paragraphs on several sections, including Contraindications (less than one line), Adverse effects, History, Legal status, Economics, and Research. The article is not quite a stub, but rating it higher than C or perhaps B would not appear justified in its current state.


 * The technical coverage also appears at first sight to be rather shallow. Why, for example, are the effects on mast cells, basophils, and neutrophils not discussed at all? Its mechanism of action should certainly be discussed in more detail. In addition, what is known about the drug from its clinical trials? There's hardly anything there in the article, so on the face of it we have a quick fail here.


 * I am happy to wait a week for improvements to be made to the article, but these will have to be reasonably substantial to address these initial concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick review! I'm actually a little curious about this process.  I started to expand the article from a stub by grabbing all the WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources I could find, and when I got to the end of them, this is all there was.  What happens in the case where there just simply aren't a ton of good sources?  I've been doing TRIP Database and PUBMED searches for secondary sources like review articles and meta-analyses.  Is my approach to finding sources wrong?  Any help appreciated...   14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not everything can become a good article; some topics just aren't known in enough detail to warrant it. If you are certain there are no other usable sources, that's all that can be said and we should close the GAN cycle now; however, I'd expect you could find reliable sources on the clinical trials, which must be published. As for a quick review, I have performed only brief preliminary checks and would expect to review a more finished article in more detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't know "not everything can become a GA", that's interesting. The one article I found that (I believe) reviewed the clinical trials was Bell 2005, and someone helpfully inserted the entire text content of it into the article in this version.  The review didn't seem to go into the mechanism of action, and it basically just stated "some tests were run, canker sores healed faster, the drug was absorbed into and excreted by the body".  There was some discussion of safety testing in rats but what we need to cover is its safety in humans, which gets a brief mention as "well tolerated" in PubChem.  You seem to know about pharmaceutical articles; do we normally refer directly to the primary studies?  If you wouldn't mind helping point me in the direction of where I should be looking I'd appreciate it.  Right now it is looking like 1) not all the sources were identified, so quickfail, or 2) all the sources were identified but there just isn't enough meat here to make a GA out of it, so quickfail.  Either one is fine with me, I don't mind, I'd just like to know the answers to my sourcing questions for my future article development efforts.    14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we'd better assume the article needs more development so I'll close this now. We are allowed to use primary studies, with care; WP generally and rightly aims for reliable secondary sources which review the various primary studies. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. In doing a few GA reviews myself I have found that some projects are very against primary sources (WP:MED) and some actually encourage/require them (WP:DINO).  Maybe it was wrong of me to assume the WP:MED attitude was applicable for a pharmaceutical article.  I'll ask at the pharmaceutical project for more guidance.  Cheers...   16:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)