User:Ahmadyarg/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Chlorothiazide link
 * Article Evaluation
 * I think i can contribute a lot to this article because it is missing a lot of important information regarding its MOA, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic
 * It is written neutrally
 * The indications, contraindications, and side effects are not cited
 * The current citations are credible but there are not very many
 * It could use more citations
 * The talk page is not very active
 * Source
 * The Mayo Clinic
 * Pubchem

Option 2

 * Article title: Cortisone link
 * Article Evaluation
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic
 * It is written neutrally
 * It is well cited
 * The current citations are credible.
 * It could benefit with added sections regarding its various formulations and MOA.
 * Sources
 * Mayo clinic
 * pubchem
 * pubchem

Option 3

 * Article title: Enalapril link
 * Article Evaluation
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic
 * It is written neutrally
 * It could use more citations after some of its claims
 * The current citations are credible and plentiful.
 * It could benefit with added sections regarding its various formulations and MOA.
 * The page already seems pretty well developed
 * Sources
 * Mayo clinic
 * pubchem
 * pubchem

Option 4

 * Article title: Olmesartan ( Olmesartan)
 * Article Evaluation
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic
 * It is written neutrally
 * It has citations after most claims
 * The current citations are credible
 * It could benefit with added sections like MOA.
 * On the talk page, some people were questions the confusion of it being a pro drug Sources
 * Mayo clinic
 * pubchem
 * pubchem

Option 5

 * Article title: Carvedilol here
 * Article Evaluation
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic
 * It is written neutrally
 * It has citations after most claims
 * The current citations are credible
 * It seems to already be well developed
 * The talk page is very active
 * Sources
 * Mayo clinic
 * pubchem
 * pubchem