User:WeepingBritney/Paracetamol prof review

Quality as Teaching Aid

 * Is the level of this article appropriate for junior- and senior-level undergraduates? If not, what level of reader (or range of levels) would it be appropriate for?

These articles are presented on many levels with some of the material being very elementary, e.g. animal drug sensitivity, and others being quite complicated (various organic synthetic pathways). On the whole the target is a general audience and the topics covered are at the general science level.


 * Is the topic of the article presented in a logical sequence?

The topics are arranged in hodgepodge order, and there is some repetition, as if these articles are the product of a committee, which I suspect they are. Topics of lay significance, for example drug toxicities, are emphasized, which seems appropriate.

No. I use Wikipedia as a general reference, and would recommend it to anyone as a general reference, but not as a teaching reference. On the whole Wikipedia is the most accurate, complete and unbiased source of general information on the web. However, as a teaching source it, very few of the topics have the depth of information or emphasis that I would choose to teach these subjects.
 * Would you recommend this article for your undergraduate students? If not, why not?

Quality as Summary of the Topic
The major areas of both topics were covered fairly completely.
 * Does the article cover its topic completely?


 * Are the basic concepts and terminology of the topic introduced?

All the basic concepts necessary for a lay person’s understanding of these topics are covered.

The major areas of general interest for drugs are their mechanism of action and potential toxicities, these topics are covered in sufficient detail.
 * Is the amount of detail appropriate for the length of the article?

Yes, there were a few glaring errors, and inconsistencies. Also, some speculative findings that are as yet not well accepted and probably incorrect are contained in these articles. It is a shame to perpetrate some of these ideas.
 * Are there any glaring errors, omissions or misleading statements?

I estimate that about 95% of the information is correct, nothing was wrong that could cause danger or harm to the readers.
 * How precise and/or quantitative is the article?


 * Is the article up-to-date? If not, when would this article have been a current review of its topic?

They were fairly up to date, and some of the sections were written by individuals with an in depth and sophisticated understanding of some of the arcane details of the science underlying these drug’s mechanisms. Unfortunately, the most in depth information presented, although accurately describing the conclusions of the underlying scientific research, is the most likely to be incorrect.


 * Is the historical development of the topic covered?

Yes.

Readability

 * Is the writing clear and well-organized?

The writing is clear. It is easy to find the topics of interest by the imbedded links and outline, but the organization is somewhat haphazard.


 * Does the article have good flow?

Because this is online material with links, it is meant to be read piecemeal and not as a whole, so the idea of good flow is not applicable.


 * Is the article redundant anywhere?

Yes, but not so much that it is annoying.

Figures

 * Are the figures clear, and do they help explain the topic?

The figures are good. These articles often have drug structure, both stick figures and space filling, which are always helpful for understanding. They also have reaction pathways for organic synthesis or for metabolic pathways that are usually very useful.

Yes
 * Are the figures consistent with each other and with the text?


 * Do the figures have any exceptional features, such as being three-dimensional?

The space filling models are interesting.