Talk:Ketotifen/GA1

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

Reviewer: BeingObjective (talk · contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

BeingObjective (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Very inconsistent. The article lacks balance and exhibits a perplexing tone. While I acknowledge the necessity of referencing other articles in more technical sections, maintaining a delicate equilibrium is crucial. The article's heavy reliance on internal links for clarification creates a challenging reading experience.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * 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):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Simplifying the language in these sections with more accessible explanations would alleviate this issue. Rather than consistently redirecting the reader to other articles, a few explanatory sentences could suffice to convey the intended concepts.

A specific instance highlighting broader stylistic concerns is evident in the following passage:

"Some studies classify ketotifen as a first-generation antihistamine,[8][9][10] but others classify it as a second-generation antihistamine.[11][12]"

This discussion could have been articulated more simply, considering it appears twice in the article. This prompts a stylistic query about the necessity of dwelling extensively on this specific point.

BeingObjective (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review my article on ketotifen and providing your valuable comments and suggestions. I appreciate your expertise and insights on this topic.
 * I understand your concerns about the balance and tone of the article, and I agree that some sections could be simplified and clarified for the general audience. However, I also want to ensure that the article does not omit or distort any important information or sources relevant to the topic.
 * One of the main issues that you raised was the classification of ketotifen as a first- or second-generation antihistamine. You suggested that this discussion could have been articulated more simply and that repeating it twice in the article was unnecessary. However, I would like to explain my rationale for writing the article the way I did and ask for your opinion and guidance on how to improve it.
 * The classification of ketotifen is not a trivial matter, as it has implications for its pharmacology, efficacy, and side effects. Therefore, I think it is important to provide some background information on the criteria and the differences between the generations of antihistamines and to cite several sources that support the classification of ketotifen as either a first- or second-generation antihistamine, depending on the context and the definition used. I created a separate section on the classification of antihistamines, where I explained these concepts in more detail. I also used internal links to other articles that provide more information on the specific terms and concepts, such as H1 receptor, sedation, and blood-brain barrier. I think these links are helpful for readers who want to learn more about the topic, and they do not interfere with the flow of the article.
 * The reason why I mentioned the classification of ketotifen in the lead section as well as in the body of the article is because I followed the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which states that the lead section is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the issue is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Therefore, I briefly mentioned the classification of ketotifen in the lead section, as it is one of the most important and controversial aspects of the topic. There is the "Classification" section of the body of the message, where the classification is discussed in more detail. This way of presenting important and controversial information is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines for writing a good lead section. The editor should first introduce the reader to a problem discussed in the article and then, in the body, uncover the underlying details of that problem. I hope you understand my rationale for writing the article the way I did. I am open to constructive criticism and willing to make changes to the article if they are justified and supported by evidence. However, I also want to ensure that the article meets the standards of quality and accuracy that Wikipedia expects from its contributors.
 * I would appreciate it if you could provide some concrete examples of how you would rewrite the sections that you found problematic, such as the "Classification" section, for simplicity but preserving all the background information. How would you present the information in a way that satisfies the GA criteria and the readers' expectations? This example of the section you would provide would help me understand your perspective better and improve the article accordingly.
 * Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you to improve the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Subject: Reassessment of Article History and Structure
 * Hey Max,
 * I hope this message finds you well. We've previously discussed the matter at hand in several conversations.
 * The page was initially created by Terrace4 on 30th July 2005 at 16:21, so nearly two-decade have past since its creation.
 * I approached the article objectively, akin to how I would assess work submitted by one of my students.
 * At the crux of my comments lies the notion that constructing this article entirely from scratch, free from external prior historical influences, might yield a substantially different better toned/balanced document. The comment suggesting that the 'article lacks balance and exhibits a perplexing tone' may stem from the incremental assembly process - perhaps.
 * I only looked at the document as is, as submitted - I have no clue what content was modified. It would be an interesting side study.
 * I reviewed this article - as presented and did not look at the origins, but the comment is relevant to how this document came to be.
 * While the iterative add approach can be effective in certain contexts, it poses a considerable challenge in articles like this one. The inclination to continually build upon inherited sections, headings, and content, which may no longer even be pertinent to the current landscape of medicine and pharmacology, is a noteworthy issue.
 * These perspectives are solely mine, and I acknowledge that other technical editors may perceive the article differently.
 * Best regards,
 * Cheers BeingObjective (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and your suggestions. I appreciate your perspective and your expertise on this topic. I understand that you think the article could be improved by rewriting it from scratch. However, I also believe that the article has some merits and follows the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for writing a good article, with some exceptions on the lead section that I should rewrite and split the body of the article into sections differently. The sections should be arranged in a new way to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION as suggested by AirshipJungleman29.
 * The article could benefit from some revisions and improvements, especially in simplifying the language and clarifying the concepts for the general audience. I am willing to work on that and make the necessary changes to the article.
 * One of your initial suggestions was to simplify the discussion on the classification of ketotifen as a first- or second-generation antihistamine. However, I think this discussion is important and relevant to the topic, and I presented it the way I did for a reason. The classification of ketotifen has implications for its pharmacology, efficacy, and side effects. I provided some background information on the criteria and the differences between the generations of antihistamines and cited several sources that support the classification of ketotifen. I also mentioned the classification of ketotifen in the lead section, as it is one of the topic's most essential and controversial aspects. I hope you understand my rationale for writing the article the way I did. I am open to constructive criticism and willing to make changes to the article. I would appreciate it if you could provide examples of how you would rewrite the sections you found problematic. How would you present the information in a way that satisfies the GA criteria and the readers' expectations? Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you and working to improve the article.
 * One last question: do you intend to close the review or not? I would like to know the status of the article and the next steps to take. Do you intend to finish the review as described in Step 4 of the Reviewing process (WP:GAN/I)? You wrote that the article failed the criteria, but you didn't update the status of the review. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This review has been declared invalid, and the nomination returned to queue. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Final point of clarity - and to me this is now irrelevant, as I have now a better understanding of such matters, but an broader important point.
 * I am now far more guarded in offering technical insight.
 * Targeting and taking older articles written often by - in this editor's humble opinion - folks who were indeed knowledgeable - and then nearly 20 years later refloating them into a GA status pipeline - is interesting, and curious, is it actually problematic - perhaps not, perhap so.
 * There never what a suggestion for a total from scratch redo. The pattern of taking things out of context is also in play.
 * I think for the formal record - this is an important consideration and I could go a lot further on this behavior and comment.
 * I do not think this a good article.
 * Clearly, I am soured on offering any future assistance on deeply technical content - and I did learn something about the dubious agendas I have seen - at least from a couple of editors - is GA status worth this angst, is it a good GA process, is it worth burning digital relationships - I am not sure.
 * Is the comment intentionally ambiguous - perhaps.
 * Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I improved the article according to your suggestions anyway. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on articles by many people is how Wikipedia works. You cannot "take ownership" on an article or rewrite it from scratch here, as it is against the spirit of Wikipedia; you cannot simply "discard" other people's contribution by writing an article from scratch that already existed. If an editor is interested in Ketotifen, that editor will present information regardless of whether such articles existed or not; the editors do not have to specifically search for topics for that the articles do not exist; your idea of creating a "new" article for a topic that does not exist is a no-go for Wikipedia, as described in ; please also consider that many people are here for which English is not a native language, so please be clear and use plain simple English, otherwise people may not understand you - this will save you from falsely accusing people in "pattern of taking things out of context". In my specific case I had to ask other people to explain me what you meant. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Review invalidated
This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to complete the review: --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)