User:1013-Nqua/archive

My Project
Project changed to Cefquinome. See this archived page for a discussion of the previously proposed project.

Workshop: Cefquinome
Workshop Guidelines

Hi, I've just had a look at your article, and it's coming along pretty well. I've added Template:Drugbox to the page, and filled in some of the information you already gave. You can see another one of these information boxes in action at Cefmenoxime, for example. Of course there's a lot of other information that should ideally belong in the information box as well; looking at Template:Drugbox might help you in being able to fill most of it in. One major omission I noticed in your article is you don't discuss who performed the animal studies, when they were performed, what their purpose was, or what their results were. This is all very important information. If it was Intervet that conducted the studies, you also might as well merge the 'Intervet' section with the 'Studies' section. Thanks for your article.--Pharos 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Cefquinome, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know where you can improve it if you see fit. 1013-josh 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like where this is heading. Dense scientific articles such as this one are one of the most interesting areas of Wikipedia because this is where expert knowledge can be really useful, and on Wikipedia there are generally not many experts to go around. So what you're doing here is important. The overall structure of the article looks good, and the formatting is very strong. I like Pharos's addition of the template drugbox, as well. I would like to see many of these sections expanded to give more context. Pharos is correct about the studies. We should have more information here about what why these studies were performed and how they are important to understanding cefquinome. I also would like to see more frequent use of footnotes throughout. General references are good, but in a dense article like this it often helps to have footnotes frequently throughout the text to help locate specific sources for specific pieces of information. The concerns section, for example, begins in the passive tense, "There are concerns," and never really tells us who has these concerns, how widespread they are, how they've affected clinical usage, etc. I think a footnote every two or three sentences is not overkill in an article like this. You would also benefit from adding many wikilinks to help your reader navigate the article. The Intervet section seemed a little odd. A one-line section? Are you planning to expand this? Is it connected to the studies section? Should it belong above "studies"? I admire you for taking on the challenge of writing an engaging encyclopedia article about a chemical compound, and I'd encourage you to keep trying to add context that makes its importance clear for the general reader. Good work, Nqua. 1013-josh 06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nqua. Congratulations for your article! I work in the pharmaceutical industry as a chemist, so I have access to lots of information concerning drugs. I only made a few changes to your article so you can keep on working on it. I corrected the CAS number. The CAS number you entered corresponds to the sulfate salt of Cefquinome marketed under the name Cobactan (maybe you can look into it and add a section concerning that particular salt form). Also, I entered the systematic IUPAC name. (I had forgotten to log in when I did my changes! Sorry.) Numero4 16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're on the Main Page!

Hi Nqua, your article was featured on the Main Page of Wikipedia in the "Did You Know?" fact box for 6+ hours this morning. You may have had some strangers stopping by your article as a result (such as Numero4 above, so check the page history. 1013-josh 17:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nqua, you are writing on Cefquinome, which seems to be a very complex topic. One thing that may need to be worked on is adding more information to provide clarity into what Cefquinome actually is. After reading the article I still had no idea what Cefquinome actually is or what it does. This may simply be due to the complex nature of the subject. The introductory paragraph could stand to have more information to help explain what exactly Cefquinome is. Another area that may need improvement is in the studies section. You describe the studies that have taken place using Cefquinome, but I feel that the section really needs a description on the significance of these studies and what results were obtained from such studies. Under the Intervet subtitle you have only one sentence, expansion is probably necessary here, or it could be deleted altogether and put with another topic. The information under Veterinary medicine also seems to be choppy. You give one sentence facts in list fashion, which seems odd. The word choice seems very encyclopedic, authoritative, and direct all of which are necessary for an encyclopedia entry. good luck with the rest of your research. I hope this helps. 1013-Marty 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nqua, Your article on Cefquinome is very well written and interesting. I like the way you organized the article. I feel like it flows very well. I also liked the data used to explain Cefquinome in detail. However, I do feel that many of the words and topics used are very confusing. If it is possible, I think it might be useful to try to "dumb it down" for some people trying to learn more about it. You should keep everything you have, but also to add more for description. I also think that the "studies" section could use some information about what they studies found and how they are useful. The "intervet" section could also use some more information, or you could add it to the introduction portion of the article. I guess it depends if you plan on adding more to that section. Overall, I like the feel to the article and think that it's going in a good direction. The biggest thing is in improving the clarity of Cefquinome. Good job! 1013-Jeff 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nqua, Your article looks great. It is very well set up and very informative. I do feel that there wasn't enough general information. I have never heard of Cefquinome and some things went over my head. Over all it looks great!! Sorry I couldn't be more helpful! Good luck with your final project. 1013-whittney 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Participation: Nqua
Comments left for Jeff on his talk page on April 27.

Suggestions and comments for Whittney and Marty on May 8.

1013-Nqua 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Homework
Mission 1, accomplished! 1013-Nqua 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits and sentence added to movie: The Day After Tomorrow 1013-Nqua 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work. Remember to add a comment to the edit summary box to make it easier for other users to follow your changes. And you probably shouldn't mark it as "minor" when you add a full new sentence. You may want to add the film page to your watchlist so you can see what becomes of your changes. 1013-josh 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I consent. Although, I will be changing my topic. As of the moment, I am thinking of cefquinome. 1013-Nqua 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, great! Let me know at any time if you change your mind and would like to switch to an off-line research assignment. And let me know what happens with your topic. 1013-josh 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Working draft mission complete! 1013-Nqua 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking good. See my note about the redirect below. 1013-josh 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1000+ words draft. There's still a lot left to do. I'm just uncertain about the "Studies" portion of the draft. It looks a little out of place. What do you think? 1013-Nqua 02:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work. You're approved for transfer over to the mainspace. I prepped your draft a little to get it ready, and tomorrow I'll help you move it. I'll have more comment on the studies section next week during "workshop," but I think it could be a useful addition to the article if you provide a little more context for the studies and give citations. 1013-josh 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cefquinome article complete: 16:24, 10 May 2007. 1013-Nqua 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes from Josh & the Class
Hey, I just posted some helpful research links; don't miss them! 1013-josh 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nqua. It looks like you were trying to redirect your user page to your user talk page. Is that true? Your edits were reverted twice by a Wikipedia user known as DerHexer. See the history page. I think DerHexer may have reverted your edits because you weren't logged in, so s/he may have assumed that the redirect was vandalism from an unknown user. If you want to redirect your user page to your user talk page, log in, and then try it again. 1013-josh 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I keep forgetting to log in.  1013-Nqua 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes from Wikipedians
Wikipedians, if you're commenting specifically about the Cefquinome article, feel free to chime in in the "Workshop" section above.

Welcome!
Hello, 1013-Nqua, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)