Talk:Statin/GA1

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

Nominator: 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one.

Comments

 * The article overall presents an admirably detailed, even comprehensive account of this family of drugs.


 * I note that there are some very short subsections in 'Medical uses': 'Women' is indeed a single sentence. Perhaps we could at least merge the 'Women' and 'Children' subsections. I can see that the many subheadings have a useful function but they do make the article very bitty.


 * Again in 'Adverse effects', 'Neuropathy' is one very short sentence.


 * The Stalin hatnote is ridiculous, let's remove it.


 * It's not quite clear which language variant is in use; it seems to be British English, in which case I believe we should say Cyclosporin not Ciclosporin, for example: I'm sure there are several other items that need ENGVAR fixes. Would be handy to add a British English tag at the top of the article.


 * I found the use of English comfortable and not too technical, but then I have a Biology training. The first paragraph of the lead is good, plain, direct, and simple, but very short. It might be appropriate to say a little more up there to summarize more of the article, or of its context, in a simple way. You could, for instance, say that high cholesterol, a fatty substance found in the blood, contributes to heart disease, or something cuddly of that sort.


 * The claim about the 'Patient compliance' paragraph in the lead doesn't seem to be reflected in the article body. Since the lead is meant only as a summary, either move this and the refs out of the lead, or add materials giving extra details in the body.


 * The claim about atorvastatin in the lead says "best-selling" while the (mis)matching claim in the body says "largest-selling" (an odd phrase). Best match em'up.


 * The lead is fully cited ... which is non-standard for Wikipedia. If it's what you do for all drug articles, that's fine. Otherwise we should probably move the refs out of the lead.


 * There is a slight impression of English-speaking bias with mentions of United States and English groups in 'Primary prevention'. Reinforcing this, two European societies get a brief look in ... at the very end of the section! Perhaps there are some simple additions you could make to the article to globalise it a little; I appreciate that much work and many groups are what the French bizarrely call "Anglo-Saxon" (Westu Theoden Hal!), but it should be possible to find something from other countries.

Images

 * The text in File:HMG-CoA reductase pathway.svg is amazingly difficult to read; I think it's mainly the choice of a Serif typeface, but the green and brown lettering (even though bigger) looks really fuzzy. Maybe the grey background isn't helping either: it seems to be a translation of a transparent SVG background, so it'd help if that was simply set to white.


 * In the Statin pathway image, titles are cropped by the image border, and also tangle with the double-line grey frame around the top section of the pathway.


 * All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.


 * I tried quite a few spot-checks and they all seem to verify the claims made.

Summary
This is a fine article very nearly ready for GA. The mainly small issues above, especially those on Sources, just need attention first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, big obstacle. This is a drive-by nomination, basically all nom has done is to add one citation. Sorry but will have to fail this now, I should have checked and deleted the nomination. I hope the comments will be useful to another nominator who has actually worked substantially on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)