Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 9:00, 21 April 2014.

Amphetamine

 * Nominator(s):  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the central nervous system stimulant that you probably know at least a little bit about.

Prior to the first nomination that closed two weeks ago, this article was subject to an extremely rigorous GA review to help prepare the article for this review process. This nomination is a continuation from where Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1 left off.


 * @,, : Just notifying you three that I've renominated the article.

WP:PAYWALLED citations for the article can be downloaded here: my file locker for the amph article.

 Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Curly Turkey

 * The "Reference notes" section is a pretty messy, awkward way of dealing with an abundance of citations. Have you seen WP:BUNDLING? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Curly; yeah, I agree it's a bit awkward, especially considering the 4th note only has 2 citations. Refnotes 1-4 are actually just the citations for the four lead paragraphs respectively (listed once at the end of each paragraph).  The first reviewer from the last nomination had a real issue with citing the lead due to "readability problems." I cite the lead of articles I write mostly out of habit and aversion to unreferences statements (~99% of the sentences in the article have at least 1 corresponding medical citation).  The single remaining (5th) refnote/bundled-citation references the diverse overdose symptom list in the body of the article. I'm open to suggestions on making it neater if you have an idea/suggestion on how to do that though. :)  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 07:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue discussed/addressed in Shuddle's section.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Anypodetos
My concerns were already addressed in the first FA review, but I'd like to give the article another read (next weekend) before I formally support promotion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the ® edits; I was trying to be consistent in the parenthetical brand mentions while indicating Adderall refers both to the brand and the generic mixture (the lack of generic name makes it seem odd in generic and/or brand drug lists...). I read MOS:TM beforehand, so I was aware that it's generally discouraged. In any event, I think you were right in removing it since it made lists of generics with Adderall® outside of parentheses odd.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I understood your intention, and as it's a guideline and not a policy I won't be removing any ®s again should they be added. However, as some people routinely remove ®s in articles, I think we shouldn't rely on them for conveying information to the reader. Should my "trade name, e.g., Dexedrine" be included again, do you think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)
 * Come to think of it, I think the best way to deal with it is simply cut the parenthetical mentions of brands throughout the article since there's already an entire section covering brand and generic drug info. It's a bit redundant with that section and just results in the problem with distinguishing brand/generic drugs by keeping it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What about the abbreviation titles in the Pharmacodynamics section? They are somewhat dense for my personal taste, but I won't remove any (to, say, one per abbreviation and paragraph) without your support, Seppi. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll cut them to the first mention then.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support promotion. I agree with TSC that any remaining issues are minor things and won't affect FA worthiness. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

K, I made a few changes, mostly to address what we talked about above and the lack of clarity on what "amphetamine" refers to (in the article and in general). Let me know how it looks (please revert a change if I did something stupid - I'm not very awake right now...). Regards,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 22:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support from TSC

 * Support, Most of my comments were addressed during the previous nomination. A. is a difficult subject to write about, since you are writing essentially about 4 substances in one article (two stereoisomers, racemic mixture and adderall). Of course improvements are always possible, but the article is already at the level of FA for pharmacology, so improvements can continue after the nomination is approved. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from John
Oppose on prose. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate that uses "however", "moreover" and the like as padding. This is not brilliant writing. Also, what's going on with the undefined tags? --John (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to actually address your concern without additional feedback, as it's excessively vague. Transition words are used for to enhance the flow of writing in any good English text. What precisely do you believe is the problem with the current use? How would you like to see it addressed? Abbr tags are indicated for accessibility and general readability both in html and in the wiki MOS.
 * In any event, please elaborate with the style guide - without a guideline, there's literally no way I'll be able to fix conformity to a formatting standard.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Re the abbr tag I prefer Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence. If you're going to use html you should probably only use it the first time too or at least be consistent in how you are using it. Re "however" see WP:EDITORIAL. Re "moreover" try the sentence without it and if it still works (it will) leave it out. "Moreover" is padding and it makes the prose harder to read without adding meaning. --John (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @John:  After going through it, I agree - 3 of them were a bit useless since they were written redundantly " Moreover XYZ also...". The last one I cut flowed well even without it as you suggested.
 * Off the top of my head, the styles I used throughout the article include: (a lot was convered in the GA review)
 * Consistent use of the serial comma (I went through the whole article)
 * Use of American English and DMY dates
 * Consistent journal name formatting using a period with where abbreviated according to Pubmed-indexed journal names
 * First and middle names of authors initialized and written as Last1 (F1)(M1), Last2 (F2)(M2), ... (no et. al.)
 * use of comma when writing e.g., and i.e.,
 * In abbreviations, full versions are written out in the first occurrence and abbreviated thereafter, with an abbr template used only at the first instance of each ensuing paragraph (for consistency and in order to avoid a display of something ugly like this clause was intended to appear).
 * Edit: to be completely upfront, there's 2 adjacent sentence with 2 names where I didn't follow this convention, simply because the full name is unnecessary jargon.
 * These terms are: SLC22A3 and SLC22A5 which are SoLute Carrier (family) 22 members 3 and 5 respectively.
 * In any event, I'd be happy to do edits to cut redundancy like that if you spot anymore.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 09:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing quite a few. Take these edits as a model. We need to go through and trim any other padding and superfluous words. It should be possible to trim 10% and the article will be the better for it. --John (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll see what I can prune over the next few days of editing, particularly in the technical sections.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll help out. It's easier to edit someone else's work. It's a really good article and just needs a wee trim. --John (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I pruned pharmacodynamics as much as I could - how's it look?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 08:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's looking better. I now have a slightly different qualm about the article; I am worried it depicts Adderall in too positive a light. I have pinged User:SandyGeorgia who is more of an expert on the medical side of things, and maybe she can help. I accept that the references are good but it seems this article spends just a little too much time reassuring the reader how utterly safe and efficacious this drug is when used as a medicine. Second opinion needed. --John (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I suppose you've got a point that it's probably a bit too much reassurance; the main reason I wrote it that way was due to the misconceptions people have about amphetamine as a result of the mountain of negative outcomes related to methamphetamine use (the lead of that article contains a summary of it). I didn't intend to emphasize the safety of a particular medication though, so I'm perfectly fine with scaling back the language. Which parts concerned you?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I cut the only medical claim involving Adderall that I saw on the page; was there something else that concerned you?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 11:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I noticed you reintroduced the ADHD abbreviation in the first sentence of the body a while back when it was defined in the first sentence of the lead. I don't have any issue with redefining it in the body, but is it conventional to do that, or was that unintentional? Regards,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I just introduced the last 2 paragraphs in Amphetamine - I'd really appreciate your expertise in copyediting that. I tried to keep it short and concise.   Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look later on today. --John (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The bit you have added looks ok. I dislike the indistinct photo of the colourless liquid. Could I interest you in File:Adderall bottle and capsules.jpg instead? --John (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to shy away from using images of pharmaceuticals because they're really just amphetamine salts combined with a lot of fillers or in a resin, possibly also in a gelatin capsule. Before writing the article, I didn't know the amphetamine compound (free base) was actually a liquid at room temparature, so I thought it more informative to add that. I think the pharmaceutical would be great for the associated enantiomer or product page though (dextroamph/adderall).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's a terrible picture. Here's another one: "contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine)" We don't do this per WP:MOSBOLD. I was sure I had removed this but it looks like it has been re-added. --John (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'd forgotten that you removed it so I put it back in; I merely added it due to the convention in other drug articles with contracted names. I don't mind cutting it, so I'll remove it now.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Question "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine." Is this statement true world-wide or does it relate only to the US? --John (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a worldwide statistic even though the reverse is true in Europe - see the pie chart on page 133: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume1.pdf  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that should be mentioned then. --John (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - diff  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I support on prose now. Here are the last few edits I made, nothing major. Well done for your good work on this article. --John (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Shudde
I have a number of problems with this article (specifically criteria 1a, 1b and 2b). I'm only going to list a few of the problems I have found.
 * I know that there are guidelines regarding the structure of pharmacology articles, but why is there not a section (preferably near the top) introducing the structure and nomenclature of the two enantiomers and the prodrug? For example Lisdexamfetamine is mentioned in the lead, yet it's structure (and the fact that it's a prodrug that metabolises to dextroamphetamine) is not mentioned until the Pharmaceutical products section. I know there is a link to the main article further up, but is mentioned twice before it's adequately introduced.
 * The main reason I put it last (besides being indicated in MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM)is because the salts and lisdexamfetamine (Lis-D-amph dimesylate/Vyvanse is more or less a glorified time-released salt of dextroamphetamine, since, like dextroamphetamine salts, the active moiety of lisdexamfetamine is dextroamphetamine) have pharmacodynamics that are identical to the freebase form - I suppose I should state that explicitly in the pharmaceuticals section. There are claims that lisdexamfetamine is more difficult to abuse, but the pharmacokinetic difference is completely irrelevant for recreational users since the elimination half-life for the enantiomers nearly triples during an overdose. A detailed description of the chemical properties wouldn't be very interesting IMO, so I didn't even bother elaborating on lisdexamfetamine's chemical properties (which should be in that article, per summary style). The key difference between lisdexamfetamine and dextroamphetamine is that its half life is, on average, about an hour longer due to the time required to metabolize the lysine portion. As for the enantiomers, there's really not much more to the naming convention than the content of note 2 - i.e., left/right handed versions of a mirror image. Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * You haven't responded to the thrust of my comment: "why is there not a section introducing the structure and nomenclature of the two enantiomers and the prodrug"? I think you may be missing my point here. Like many others, at PR, GAC and FAC I usually read the lead last. So when I started reading this article (from Uses–Medical) there were a number of terms/names in use that hadn't been introduced -- lisdexamfetamine is just one example. Levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine are other examples. MOS:MED does not preclude implementing this suggestion. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you expect me to put into this section that isn't already covered in chemical and physical properties? The structural relationship between amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and levoamphetamine requires only two sentences, as it did in the lead.  Lisdexamfetamine is not an example of the amphetamine molecule (I'd suggest you actually cite a chem/pharm database if you want to argue this), but ignoring this, it's relationship is simply an inactive prodrug form of D-amph coupled with L-lysine.  All that is 3 sentences for this entire section; what else do you want added? I mentioned MOS:MED because it indicates that section is where it's supposed to be.  The only other option to implement your suggestion is to create a completely redundant section with that one. I'm not going to introduce redundancy simply because you want to skip the lead and read that information in the body sooner.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Much of the opening paragragh of the Physical and chemical properties (although is structure a property? Don't properties derive from a structure?) could be moved to the top of the article. For example levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine are both linked in this section, but levoamphetamine had already been mentioned several times in the text, yet here it is introduced (apart from the lead, but like I said, one should not need to read the lead before reading the main text -- nor the infobox). You could also mention all the names (in note one) in this section. It would probably make sense to merge this with the Pharmaceutical products section. Therefore when you mention the various names (brand or otherwise) throughout the rest of the article, it will be clear exactly you are referring to. -- Shudde  talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another example is how you discuss the "free base" form in several instances. This would all make more sense if the structure was discussed earlier (that amphetamine incorporates a primary amine, and therefore can exist as a free base or as a salt) and the various enantiomeric ratios, salts etc.
 * I tacked on "free base" to the clause on the chemical that "amphetamine" references in formal/correct use. For this compound, the salts basically just act as a delivery vehicle since the active moiety, amphetamine (the free base is a bit volatile), retains its pharmacological properties in all the salts used in pharmaceuticals (i.e. the salts don't affect pharmacology).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * Again missing my point (and I don't think your statements here are necessarily correct; amphetamines are almost certainly supplied as salts for other/further reasons). My point was that "any" discussion of a free base or salt would benefit from the reader being introduced to the fact that amphetamine incorporates an amine -- see above. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Amphetamines are almost certainly supplied as salts for other/further reasons" - Oh really? What might those be?
 * Anyone who looks at the first sentence or the IUPAC drugbox parameter would realize amphetamine contains an amine. This material is already covered in chem/physical properties. Citations for my former statements:
 * Pubchem: The efficiency of absorption of amphetamine & phentermine is unchanged from resin bound dosage forms compared with soluble salt formulations. However, the absorption rates of these compounds are slower from the resinates, giving rise to flatter & more prolonged blood levels. ...
 * EMCDDA: Amphetamine base is a colourless volatile oil insoluble in water. The most common salt is the sulfate (CAS-60-13-9): a white or off-white powder soluble in water. Illicit products mostly consist of powders... Amphetamine may be ingested, snorted and, less commonly, injected. Unlike the hydrochloride salt of methamphetamine, amphetamine sulfate is insufficiently volatile to be smoked.
 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You said "the salts don't affect pharmacology" -- where in the article is this stated? If this is true (and it may be) then that doesn't mean that the choice of salt is arbitrary. I was actually thinking stability/storage/shelf-life etc when I said "supplied as salts for other/further reasons" -- but there may be others (see ). But this is moving away from my point, which is that discussing salts will make a bit more sense to the reader after mentioning that amphetamine includes a primary amine. -- Shudde  talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this address your concern?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, but even if it did, it's a change to the lead. Like I've said above this could be best addressed by a separate section at the top of the article -- not in the lead. -- Shudde  talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved the chemistry section to the top in this edit - is that what you had in mind?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: I'd need a consensus on WT:PHARM to move the pharmaceutical section up top - a recent dialogue on the project page specified placing it as the last section in an article (if such a section is included) before the refs.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 17:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you need a consensus there. Projects are welcome to have guidelines, but the MoS supersedes it, and projects can't insist that articles follow their guidelines. Moving the "Physical and chemical properties" section improves things, but there are a still a number of problems. I'll list them here to try and make clearer what my thinking is:
 * I like the general structure used by pubchem -- it's very logical and intuitive
 * All the uses, properties, biological activity of the amphetamines flows from their structure, therefore mentioning this early makes sense.
 * Physical and chemical properties are not the same as structure/formulation/composition -- I would consider them the things listed at -- I'm not sure what I'd rename the section. PubChem calls it Identification -- but really we'd need something a bit more descriptive than that!
 * See the next bullet's response for why I don't have much leeway in renaming this.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * Surely "Pharmaceutical products" does not belong as a subsection of "History, society, and culture". These formulations/compositions are what is being discussed in "Uses", "Contraindications", "Side effects" etc etc -- so it would be better to have this section before the others?
 * That was actually what I was referring to - pharmaceuticals are supposed to be placed within a society and culture subsection (which I've appended to history due to the related main article name). The structure of MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM is currently inconsistent and the revision discussion has indicated its placement there. Three other reviewers have emphasized these MOS orderings in their review (I've given a detailed explanation of the ordering, prior to the chem section move, under Anypodetos' section in the first FAC). Due largely to their reviews, I don't have as much leeway on this as you think. This isn't suprising, since I notified/requested input from WT:MED/WT:PHARM at the beginning of the first FAC.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you've more or less just unknowingly illustrated what I mentioned here, can you provide your thoughts on the section layout?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you're going to have to provide me with diff's. What were the arguments exactly? If they were along the lines of "you should follow the guideline, they're great in this case because ..." then that might help. But if it's "you should follow the guideline because we have a guideline" then we may have a problem. I have no issue with guidelines being followed, but if it's only for its own sake, then we're in trouble. I've outlined exactly why I think the current formatting weakens the article, and certainly don't see how my suggestions damage it. -- Shudde  talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having an image near the top with L-amph, D-amph and lisdexamfetamine all in the same images would be great. Having one rather than two images would also make things easier for people reading the article on a mobile device.
 * I think it would be misinformative to pair lisD-amph with L-amph and D-amph. People with less familiarity with chemistry might think of the three as variants of the same chemical.  As you know, that's obviously not true.  The only thing that's really equal among these (technically, just D-amph and Lis-D-amph) is that they have the same complete pharmacodynamic profile (pharmacodynamics of the drug + metabolites).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's done well, with a good caption, then it won't be misinformative. All three compounds are discussed in the article, are providing comparative structures early is valuable. -- Shudde  talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doing all this would allow the incorporation of notes 1–3 into the main text.
 * I hope this makes things a little clearer. I'd like to emphasis that project consensus is not needed to make these changes. If the only reason we have not to do it is that, then let's just do it! -- Shudde  talk 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope this makes things a little clearer. I'd like to emphasis that project consensus is not needed to make these changes. If the only reason we have not to do it is that, then let's just do it! -- Shudde  talk 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This would also eliminated the need for note 2 (which is unreferenced).
 * I initially hadn't referenced it due to it only containing a chemistry definition (it more or less just states enantiomer) and enantiomer names derived from the INN listed in note 1. Nonetheless, I added a ref to support it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * Like I said, adding a separate section would eliminate the need for this note at all. But if you insist on retaining it, I'd recommend quoting and referencing the IUPAC Gold Book --  Shudde  talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, derp - my mistake. Thanks for the ref! I've added this as you've requested.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Uses

 * "Amphetamine, as Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine, is generally used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy.[16][20][29] Historically, amphetamine has also been used as a treatment for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion." -- is it necessary to say Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine here? Why "generally"? Could this be rewritten "Amphetamine is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy,[16][20][29] and has historically been used as a treatment for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion." ??
 * In most cases, when I've qualified a sentence with "generally" or the like, its because the unqualified statement is technically incorrect in all cases; amphetamine is banned in some countries, so in certain places its not used at all for those indications. In other countries, it's a controlled Rx with that indication (covered in legal status). I've made all other changes to this sentence that you proposed. Pruned 1 unnecessary ref as a result of the change and appended the resulting orphan sentence to the next paragraph. Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * Including "generally" may imply that it has other medical uses. You're suggesting that removing it would then make the statement mean that it can be used everywhere to treat ADHD; I can't see how one would interpret it this way. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It obviously does have other medical uses, as there's 3 others listed in that same sentence. Those are less common off-label uses.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * "Does" or "did"? The way it is written implies that it has been used for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion in the past, but not any longer. So it's currently not obvious at all. -- Shudde  talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both. It was an official indication before; now they're off-label: "With clinical applications of amphetamine as a drug to combat fatigue, an appetite suppressant and a treatment of narcolepsy, adverse effects such as anorexia, weight loss and insomnia are predictable and frequent adverse events associated with the use of amphetamine-based medications in the management of ADHD" - from the first ref to that sentence. Nasal decongestion may be an exception due to drug delivery unless people insufflate it, but that's more a recreational route than anything else.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's used off-label then it'd be good to say that. Like I said, saying it's "historically been used" reads to me like it was but no longer is used for those purposes. There is no discussion in the medical uses section (other than the first sentence) on its use in depression or obesity however, so a little bit more information on this is probably warranted. I know that there is a brief section on legal status, however does the fact that amphetamine is a scheduled/controlled substance restrict its use off-label? -- Shudde  talk 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add a mention of them as off-label uses. As far as prescribing amphetamine off-label, in the United States, that's just up to the prescribing physician.  An amphetamine Rx doesn't even need to list an indication for a generic pharmaceutical.  A complete Rx script example for brands with generic substitutes would be "Adderall Xmg PO TID #90" or "Dexedrine Ymg PO BID #60". This is true for any schedule 2 controlled substance (some states may have indication requirements, however). An insurance company cares about indications for non-generics though (Vyvanse).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you now strike the use of "generally" which seems redundant now? You mention no problems in the US -- but what about elsewhere? This would not need to be mentioned in this section (could be added to the "legal issues" section). -- Shudde  talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "generally" as you've requested.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find a lot of information on the legality of its use elsewhere, but not much on the officially indicated use - for that I'd probably have to use google translate on the equivalent government body of the FDA in other countries (the EU regulates legality in many countries, but not the indication of usage in countries where its legal, so it's not easy to summarize this or find summary information on it). I'll look, but I can't promise that I'll be able to add anything.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Literature reviews of human studies, including a meta-analysis and a systematic review, of magnetic resonance imaging indicate that long-term treatment of ADHD with amphetamine may decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects with ADHD, such as an improvement in function of the right caudate nucleus." -- This just reads very poorly. There is a redundancy, and why are we being so specific regarding the "report" (meta-analysis and a systematic review)? Would "Magnetic resonance imaging studies have revealed that long-term treatment with amphetamine may decrease the abnormalities of brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD." -- Surely this is the relevant information, although "may decrease" sounds awfully speculative.
 * Fixed this by adding a sentence back to the paragraph that I deleted yesterday (there were numerous prose edits in the day prior to your review - this sentence was cut without revising the context of that paragraph). I think the added context may answer your questions regarding specificity. Tweaked to "may decrease" to "can decrease" - beyond statistical noise, the variability is probably in large part a result of the wide range of etiological factors that cause ADHD.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * Be specific about "species" -- it's unnecessarily vague. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm specifying only the latter group since the included sources only support it for humans (a more general statement is true - I just don't feel like adding citations for the sake of specifying non-human animals). I'm not specifying the former because it's not relevant to humans or that section.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not fixed -- "systematic reviews of magnetic resonance imaging indicate" makes no sense. You can't do a review of "magnetic resonance imaging" -- you can review studies performed with an MRI machine, but the way you've written it makes it read like the technique itself has been reviewed. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Uhm...I'm not retarded - I didn't need the explanation; that was just a typo from the recent edits I linked.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The error existed when I initially commented on the statement, and remained after you tried to address it, so don't get offended that I explicitly pointed the mistake out. -- Shudde  talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "treatment of ADHD with amphetamine can decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects with ADHD" -- again with the redundant use of ADHD twice. Look at it like this, does the statement "treatment of ADHD with amphetamine can decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects without ADHD" make sense? -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I unintentionally passed over this point last time. My subsequent revisions/fixes to my last edits in this section are included in this diff:  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "In humans, reviews of clinical stimulant research have established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for ADHD." -- "In humans"? Is it necessary to specify? "Clinical stimulant research has established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for treatment of ADHD."
 * Addressed in the above bullet (w.r.t. species-dependent variation in safety).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * "In Millichap's review of recent studies, he emphasized the findings of a randomized controlled trial of amphetamine treatment for ADHD in Swedish children which found marked improvements in attention, disruptive behaviors, and hyperactivity and an average change of +4.5 in IQ following amphetamine use for 9 months." -- this seems to come out of nowhere. Recent (see WP:RELTIME) He emphasised the findings? Relative to what?
 * Tweaked the sentence intro for better flow. As noted above, I re-added context w.r.t. species-dependent variation in safety; efficacy is relative to controls.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * This whole section still has problems. "the author emphasized" -- relative to what? Over what else? "Consequently, the author asserted that other long-term amphetamine trials in ADHD with less comorbidity could result in even greater functional improvements.[35]" -- this seems speculative, why have we included it here? The language also needs work -- the study would "find" not "result". -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Diff- how's that look?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem still exists. "Noted" rather than "emphasised" doesn't address it. Is there someone that can help with a copy-edit here? -- Shudde  talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: is your concern in relation to a baseline/control group, or am I misunderstanding this issue? I can elaborate on this if so - just not 100% sure what you're looking for atm. Maintained) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't read very well. In addition to my comments above, we're mentioning the authors name, but I'm not sure why? Why is he "emphasising" or "noting"? It's not really made clear why any of this is important, but the language implies that it's because Millichap has said so. In that case it comes across as opinion (like how opposing views on something can be summarised by taking representative quotes from authoritative figures -- but this doesn't work in this case, because what we're discussing is less subjective or speculative.). Hope this helps. -- Shudde  talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. He said it was notable following a statement that long term studies were infrequent. Presumably, this study is long wrt previous studies. Shall I add a statement about its length and just cut the language on the author making an assertion? Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine that act on these systems are used to treat ADHD." -- This seems to be implying that the reason these psycho-stimulants are used to treat ADHD is because of "problems with the operation" (I don't like this phrase -- could it be more specific?) with neurotransmitter systems (that pipped link may not be appropriate btw). But surely this isn't the reason they're used, but rather a possible mode of action (the reason is because they show efficacy I assume).
 * I don't mind rephrasing it if you have a suggestion for replacement, but the message I intended to communicate with that section is more or less "these drugs act on the system that produces the (hypo-)functional impairments in adhd" - the clinical efficacy is more or less a demonstration of that explanation in practice. As for the wikilink, there's no independent article on neurotransmission; the neurotransmitter article includes information on the various systems in Neurotransmitter.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * This does need to be rephrased. Why not just say what you said to me, that amphetamine acts on these systems, and this may explain why it is effective in treating ADHD? How it's written right now is the other way around (that amphetamine is used because it acts on this system). See WP:PIPE -- but why would you use neurotransmitter systems rather than "neurotransmitter systems"? -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cut the pipe and edited the redirect to that article and section. I also rephrased this in the third group of edits; has this addressed your concern?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

At the moment it says "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine are used to treat ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems" -- but obviously they may be effective because they increase the neurotransmitter activity. So "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine may be effective in treating ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems" ?? Still not sure this fixes it, but it's an improvement I think. -- Shudde  talk 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll make this change, but I'm not sure what you see as being wrong with it (before or after this second change).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Adderall has a significantly lower discontinuation rate than other amphetamine mixtures" -- is this because it has fewer adverse effects? Also you can probably get away with only having [38] at the end of this paragraph, rather than after all of the last three sentences.
 * The Cochrane review was annoyingly vague on that topic - I couldn't find an explanation; they merely reported that. W.r.t. citations, with exception to the lead (which cites by paragraph due to another FA reviewer's complaints complaints in archive 1), the convention I've used in the body is to cite claims by sentence. Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * I find the excessive inline citations to be quite distracting. It definitely makes the article harder to read. You may want to reconsider the convention you've adopted. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've received the opposite feedback from others on the lead (i.e. distribute citations back to each sentence), but what do you suggest?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you bundle some of these references (for example 40,41,42) ? See WP:CITEBUNDLE.
 * The cutoff I've used for including a group of citations from the body of the article in the refnotes section is 5 or more consecutive citations to a single sentence. I could reduce that to 4 if you'd prefer - grouping 3 wouldn't produce much of a difference because the superscript replacement is roughly the same length. I.e.:
 * [40][41][42]
 * [ref-note #]  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * *Go for four. Keep them as short as possible. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a number of single sentence paragraphs -- can these be reorganised?
 * I've merged all single sentences into relevant paragraphs except for the individual sentence in physical side effects, which I intentionally kept in order to emphasize that statement. That was the only single paragraph sentence that I authored. Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)

Pharmacology

 * Can I get your feedback on the image in pharmacodynamics? I'm not sure if its more useful to replace certain text with an annotated wikilink overlay or add more descriptive text to the image.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When I give this section a proper read through I'll give you a more definitive answer, but at the moment my feeling is not to add further to it. It's probably a busy enough image as is, and adding annotated wikilinks may reduce clarity. At the moment I don't think it's worth your time, but I'll give it some more thought. -- Shudde  talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to submit it for FP and ended up getting a lot of useful feedback on it (both on my userpage and at the FP nomination page). I'm going to follow up on the feedback I've received and improve it to FP-quality.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is currently a valued image (Edit:now a quality image too - 06:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)). Probably going to renominate it for FP since I received useful feedback from it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to skip down a bit.
 * "Amphetamine is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine. Oral availability varies with gastrointestinal pH. Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9–10; consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium. Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in its water soluble cationic form, and less is absorbed." -- I wonder if this could be reorganised to be a little clearer and better organised. This would also benefit from a structure / nomenclature section earlier on (you're effectively discussing effects arising from the amine). It's also a little confusing, saying there is a certain absorbance. Maybe "The oral bioavailability of amphetamine varies with gastrointestinal pH. Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9–10; consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium. Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is exists predominantly as a water soluble salt, and less is absorbed. Amphetamine is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine." -- this is minor (hopefully I've not stuffed the pharmacokinetics up) but I think improves it.
 * I've made this revision, but tweaked it slightly for flow.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * "Approximately 15–40% of amphetamine circulating in the bloodstream is bound to plasma proteins." -- again with the single sentence paragraphs. It's also strange how this is not really elaborated on or explained, but the pH dependent conversion between a free base to a salt is.
 * The pH-related conversion information and protein binding (as prose) was added by another FA reviewer - I didn't want to alter it for obvious reasons. I think he just wanted to add the drugbox information to the pharmacokinetics prose for completeness.  Protein binding isn't an interesting pharmacokinetic property for amphetamine IMO. Bioavailability and excretion are more general pharmacokinetic parameters and pH induces high variability in those parameters for this drug though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * "When the urinary pH is basic, more of the drug is in its poorly water soluble free base form, and less is excreted" -- is this necessary given the discussion in the first paragraph of this section?
 * The first paragraph discussed the effect of pH on absorption. That clause is discussing the effect of pH on excretion.  It's more or less just saying the impaired absorption/excretion related to alkaline pH arises from the same chemical phenomenon, even though the processes/involved organs are different.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * The effect of pH on lipophilicity (or water solubility) is already discussed though, and this seems to be repeated here. -- Shudde  talk 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did this address the issue?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on this one. Definitely an improvement though. -- Shudde  talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Metabolism occurs mostly in the liver by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) detoxification system of enzymes. CYP2D6 and flavin-containing monooxygenase are the only enzymes currently known to metabolize amphetamine in humans." -- might be worth explaining that CYP2D6 is a member of the cytochrome P450 system, otherwise this may seems like a contradiction to readers.
 * I'm actually just going to cut that first sentence since it was based upon the December 2013 adderall XR FDA label and written prior to the FMO addition a few months back. The FDA label is completely missing information on FMO. Moreover, in the average person, FMO3 and CYP2D6 have roughly comparable activity.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * As you can't easily explain what the various metabolic pathways are, why not add labels to the arrows for File:Amph Pathway.png (for example amphetamine to 4-hydroxyamphetamine is para-hydroxylation). This would be a great thing to do.
 * Done. I'll annotate that sometime over the next day or so w/ annotated image 4.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * How's the format on this look at the moment? User:Seppi333/sandbox2  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better, a minor gripe would be to use lower-case letters rather than starting with capitals, but that is really up to you. -- Shudde  talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd sort of prefer to use caps because of the page name wikilinks, but I did make it consistent since you made this comment (e.g., I changed para-hydroxylation to Para-Hydroxylation for consistency with wikilink caps).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * After re-reading this section, there is no discussion on the difference in PK between Lisdexamfetamine and Adderall. A quick literature search reveals there are reviews out there on this -- it's a prodrug, so one would hope it'd have superior PK. My quick read suggests it has less PK variability. I don't think more than a couple of sentences would be needed, but if PK is discussed, seems odd to omit a mention of this. -- Shudde  talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some PK info on it. Let me know what you think.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this really does it justice. The point of the prodrug was to improve PK right? I'll see if I can unearth the review I found earlier -- this actually compares the PK of lisdexamfetamine with the amphetamines. This is something that should be covered a little more comprehensively. -- Shudde  talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to add more if you can lead me to something more comprehensive - what I added is more or less a summary of the only relevant distinction of which I'm aware (from info in the med guide/pharm databases/current reviews on the page).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The review I read was which is a good one. Another is . Both are reviews, so good secondary sources. Worth your time to look at. Also regarding Lisdexamfetamine, I know that sources say "it is converted by red blood cells to dextroamphetamine" -- but it's going to be enzymatically cleaved. Would it be better to say "red blood cell-associated enzymes" instead? ("The current findings suggest that LDX is primarily absorbed intact in the small intestines into the portal circulation and that enzymatic hydrolysis of LDX occurs primarily in the blood." ). --  Shudde  talk 01:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I went over them earlier but never made this change.  I've added your version. Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis

 * I am going through the synthesis section as carefully as I can. First up, it's good to see the section expanded.
 * The mechanism and intermediate in Method 2 looks incorrect. According to the reference (a primary ref btw), the intermediate is N-(Benzylmethylcarbinyl)-acetamide, which is prepared from acetonitrile (not cyanide), and then hydrolysed with HCl.
 * The third route cites a patent -- we should avoid citing the primary literature without also citing a secondary source. Is this route discussed in a review anywhere?
 * "A number of chiral resolutions have been developed to produce either enantiomer of amphetamine" -- doesn't a chiral resolution separate enantiomers rather than "produce" them?
 * In the last scheme I think there is an error -- shouldn't it be an imine rather than secondary amine? -- Shudde  talk 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Method 2: Interesting. This is a case where the secondary literature had it wrong (Allen & Ely, rxn/ref 102) and the primary literature (Ritter & Kalish) is correct. I have corrected the graphic and corresponding text. I have also added another secondary source (Krimen & Cota) that cites the primary source (Ritter & Kalish). Unfortunately Krimen & Cota use isobutylene instead of allylbenzene as the example.  However the reaction conditions are the same (sulfuric acid + acetonitrile) and the proposed mechanism is also the same. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The patent for the third route is reviewed by Gray DL (2007) which is cited in the very next sentence.
 * produce → separate change made.
 * The scheme is correct. Please note that there are two steps included in the first reaction arrow: (1) condensation to produce the imine intermediate followed by (2) Raney nickel reduction of the imine to the amine. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing method 2.
 * Not having the secondary and primary source in the same spot is a little confusing, but I can live with it.
 * Yes separate is much better.
 * Ah yes, sorry my mistake. A couple of questions/points though. Reorientating the bottom three structures in the "Stereoselective synthesis of amphetamine" scheme would make the scheme a little clearer. Either that or reorientate the top two structures (which may be easier) so that all the structures in the scheme are orientated in the same way. Saves the reader having to reorganise them in their heads. Esp. as the stereochem matters here. -- Shudde  talk 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have reorientated the bottom three structures in the "Stereoselective synthesis of amphetamine" scheme so that all the structures are now oriented the same way. I agree that this makes the diagram much clearer. Boghog (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

More

 * Reference 128 doesn't seem to be working properly. -- Shudde  talk 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is now reference 129 (Allen A, Ely R 2011). I just checked the link and it works for me. Please note that the PDF is of the entire issue and you need to scroll down to page 15 to get to the amphetamine review article. Or was there some other problem with this reference? Boghog (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I now see that the hyperlink from the in-line citation #128 to the full citation in the references section wasn't working. After removing a stray whitespace in the reference name, the hyperlink now works. Boghog (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Contraindications

 * "For simplicity, this section will refer to the USFDA, since multiple versions of the amphetamine prescribing information exist." -- I think I know what this is supposed to mean, but it could be clarified. Does it mean that even though the language of the prescribing information is that of the manufacturer, the USFDA approves it, and therefore any prescribing recommendations will be attributed to the USFDA? It's really not that clear, and you should consider playing with the language.
 * It's the intellectual property (via copyright) of the manufacturer. Different national drug regulatory agencies typically have their own presentation format (analogous to the WP:MOS) and may suggest/require minor content changes. If everything checks out, it's subsequently approved (that's generally how it works for the countries I know of at least).  I think it's kind of sketchy to say "(arbitrary/substitutable generic manufacturer name here) says" as opposed to "(prominent regulatory agency) says" when discussing this. WP:MED's (technically, Wikipedia's) requirement/guidance that WP not give medical advice is the main reason that it's written that way; e.g., I can't say "amphetamine and xyz shouldn't be taken together."  In any event, I'll see if I can think of a better way to write this more clearly (this may be a moot issue depending on your thoughts/suggestions to following bullet's response though).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * You need to fix the language of the note -- it's not clear, and needs to be. -- Shudde  talk 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This should now be plainly obvious to anyone reading that section now.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * This whole section only discusses the US -- information should be added on other major markets. I would expect the US to be the largest market, but not the only market..
 * I suppose I should change the language a little. Technically, contraindications are just avoidance relationships between drugs, so it's not something that varies between country.  More to my initial point though, the contraindications came from the manufacturer's Rx info (the brand/generic package insert), which has virtually the same content regardless of where its dispensed. The presentation might vary between countries though. Drugbank's Pubchem's amphetamine page (linked in the drugbox on amphetamine) and the Australian D-amph package insert for "Dexamphetamine Sulfate" (a generic - it's a ref on the dextroamphetamine page) have the same groups of contraindications as the US Adderall package insert.
 * That said, do you have any advice/preference on how I reword this to clarify that?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * You've got all this from the prescribing information provided by the FDA. Have you looked into other sources on contraindications? Or are you assuming they are going to be identical? -- Shudde  talk 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * diff - Australian, Pubchem. They are basically all the same.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 08:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This got me thinking, the contraindications are the contraindications regardless of where they come from (so regardless of who states them). Therefore wouldn't it make sense to eliminate any discussion of the FDA. So rather than saying "The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)[note 7] states that amphetamine is contraindicated in people with a history of drug abuse, heart disease, or severe agitation or anxiety, or in those currently experiencing arteriosclerosis, glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, or severe hypertension." -- it'd say "Amphetamine is contraindicated in people with a history of drug abuse, heart disease, or severe agitation or anxiety, or in those currently experiencing arteriosclerosis, glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, or severe hypertension.". There are inline citations, so the source of the information is available to the reader, and as you say, the contraindications are the same everywhere. Why would we not use the packaging information from the UK, or Japan, or Canada? Seems like any mention of the FDA is unnecessary unless it's only them (or another regulatory body) that lists the contraindication. -- Shudde  talk 23:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Medical disclaimer and Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1 are the reason for this language. Please contact him for consensus if you wish to change it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The medical disclaimer link is irrelevant, it's clearly not advice, you're just listing contraindications (we also have a general disclaimer, and attempts to add specific medical disclaimers to articles have failed). Anypodetos concerns can be allayed by saying "reported" or something similar (rather than the firm "is") -- the USFDA or manufacturer doesn't have to be mentioned. Then it's clear the information is not coming from the writer, rather from the source. -- Shudde  talk 01:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of growing children and adolescents during treatment" -- maybe "the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of children and adolescents prescribed amphetamines" -- the growing is redundant, and treatment reads funny. -- Shudde  talk 09:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)

Side effects

 * "Amphetamine products such as Adderall, Dexedrine, and their generic equivalents are currently approved by the USFDA for long-term therapeutic use." -- this reads as US-centric (which is a bit of a problem in this article). Can we not have a more general statement that encompasses more than just one country? It's approved elsewhere right? What about Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc etc. Is there not a review somewhere summarising amphetamine's use worldwide, this would surely be of interest to pharma companies and generics manufacturers. -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Drug approval is necessary nation-centric. Indication isn't.  I can cut it if you want.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * I'm saying reword it, what's stopping you saying "It's approved for use in a large number of countries" etc etc -- or something similar. Try to come up with something appropriate. -- Shudde  talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Approval isn't correct diction for non-US regulatory agencies. Again, I can cut it if you want.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * I think the first and last statement of this paragraph below next to each other, they're directly related. May be able to trim it down a little in that case. How about:
 * "Side effects of amphetamine vary, and their nature and severity are primarily dictated by dose. Consequently, the recreational use of amphetamines – where doses can be large – has a greater risk of serious side effects than in therapeutic use." -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or something like that -- makes it clearer that the dose makes the poison, and rightly links recreational use with a higher chance of serious side effects. -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "In a normal person at therapeutic doses, amphetamine does not noticeably increase the stimulate breathing, but when respiration is already compromised, it may stimulate it." -- could this be made a little clearer -- also the ref lacks a page number. -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref doesn't have page numbers. What would you like it to be changed to? It reads clearly to me.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * " increase the stimulate breathing" ? I'm confused by that.
 * Sorry, this is inevitable when numerous FAC editors make or request tons of exceedingly minor language copyedits.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref has section titles -- use those instead -- at the moment it's too hard to verify. -- Shudde  talk 02:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note the "section=" parameter in the ref is already filled in.


 * Wondering if we can try and reduce the jargon in this section, thinks like analgesic instead of pain relieving, I also wonder whether we overlinking a little in this section. -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should bring previous FAC reviewers into this discussion as well if you want to change the linking - this was covered a great deal.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * It's a wall of blue in some cases at the moment. It needs to be addressed. Not worried how you go about that. -- Shudde  talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * K, I finished removing wikilinks.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Recent studies by the USFDA indicate that" -- they didn't conduct the research did they? Did they conduct it or merely review the data. "Recent" -- be more specific. How about "A 2011 review by the USFDA found no association between serious adverse cardiovascular events (sudden death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) and the medical use of amphetamine or other ADHD stimulants." (we don't need to say 'children, young adults, and adults' as I'm pretty sure that covers nearly everyone!). -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They commissioned it. It doesn't include older adults or very young children; I'm hesistant to generalize it, since that may not be true. Your language isn't technically correct, so I made a different change that included the date.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * Add a note. Then say USFDA commissioned the study, they commission studies all the time, doesn't mean they conducted it. "indicate ... that there is no association" is vague. Did it really indicate this, or just not find an association. There is quite a difference. You've haven't addressed the root of the problem. -- Shudde  talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just add the word "commissioned." That's correct language to use in the event of nonrejection of a null with a valid statistical design.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Common psychological effects of therapeutic doses can include alertness, apprehension, concentration, decreased sense of fatigue, mood swings (elevated mood or elation and euphoria followed by mild dysphoria), increased initiative, insomnia or wakefulness, self-confidence, and sociability." -- are these all side effects? -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * "during long-term therapy as a side effect" -- drop "as a side effect" -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)


 * Wonder if more information could be included on Amphetamine psychosis -- seems light on details relative to everything else. -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It has its own section in OD and its own article... what do you want added to the psychosis section?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * It's frequency for one. It's kind of brushed over, at the moment as much text is devoted to erectile function. -- Shudde  talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Again very US-centric -- have you looked at prescribing information from other regulatory bodies? -- Shudde  talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See 1st bullet.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * You need to address this, bullet one doesn't help at all. -- Shudde  talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to both points there.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 02:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dialogue
For all these reasons I have to oppose at the moment. I'm going to leave it there. I think there are a number of problems, I've only given a sample, and have not read everything in detail just yet. I worry about the prose -- mine is not that great, and I'm seeing problems -- so I am concerned that there are even more issues in there. – Shudde  talk 10:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My 1st group of edits. My 2nd set of edits.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am really loath to suggest withdrawing this candidate. However I found a lot of problems on my read through yesterday, and I still have a long way to go. On top of that, many of the replies have not really addressed my concerns. I had a brief read through the previous FAC in order to get a feel for what work had been done on the article, and noticed at least one point I made yesterday was made at the previous FAC (regarding errors in the chemistry section, also some of the schemes); this worries me a lot. I wonder whether this article could do with a thorough peer review -- would easily take two weeks -- before a renom. – Shudde  talk 09:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My 3rd set of edits - also includes Boghog's edits My 3rd set of edits - also includes Boghog's edits
 * Frankly, I don't see how this is a very constructive review based upon your responses to my explanations and edits; nonetheless, I'll admit I introduced a few errors yestereday (largely due to a lack of sleep the night before). You've been far more confrontational with me than any previous reviewer, as none of the others have suggested that *I* am wrong. I've provided citations for my claims above in response to this.  I'd suggest you actually provide a citation to support that the article is incorrect, although that might be difficult considering I've ensured its conformity with WP:V - i.e., I haven't asserted anything in the article that isn't covered in a source. I'll also note that no reviewer in FAC1 suggested that there were "errors" in the chemistry sections.  That said, like you, Aa77zz suggested that there was an incorrect statement (in the lead), but he didn't bother to even check the supporting sources which I simply repeated in my reply to him. You've basically just asked me to include things in this article that completely lack notability. I'll continue making textual edits and other alterations to the prose based upon your feedback; however, because it's clear to me that you don't know that much about this compound, I'm probably not going to make a substantive/content edit unless you provide a source supporting what you're suggesting is entirely missing or wrong.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained)
 * A couple of points:
 * All my comments, suggestions and questions have been made in good faith, and should be treated as such
 * If you have found my comments "confrontational" that is regretful, however I'm not going to apologise for being blunt. How you interpret my comments is up to you -- you can see them as genuine feedback intended to help you get this article to FA standard, or you can take it as some kind of personal attack -- I'd recommend the former.
 * If I say something such as "If there are a large number of methods (which I doubt)" it is not my responsibility to prove that there is a small number of methods, it's yours to prove that there is a large number. "I'm probably not going to make a substantive/content edit unless you provide a source supporting what you're suggesting is entirely missing or wrong" is not how it works; you can establish what is written is correct and not, it's not mine to establish where the errors are -- not that I've said anything is "wrong" btw.
 * The comment in the previous FAC was "Synthesis - which one is used in manufacture? Remove R-s in Knoevenagel scheme since they = H. In the second dcheme, the formula for hydroxylamine, should be NH2OH not NH3." -- I more or less repeated these comments here (unbeknown that they'd been made before) because they had not been fixed or resolved properly.
 * The top of the FAC page says "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and ... [are] given considerably more weight than declarations of support" (emphasis mine). If you don't want critical comments, don't bring an article to FAC. As much as I'd love to see this article get the gold star, I'm not going to support it's promotion if I believe the prose isn't up to a professional standard, and if I believe major facts and details have been omitted.
 * An appeal to authority is not a good rationale for disagreeing with my comments.
 * If you don't wish to address my comments that is up to you. At the moment I've spent quite a lot of time reviewing only three sections -- there are over a dozen to go. Your comments above are quite discouraging. This is a difficult subject to bring to FA standard. A  psychiatrist, pharmacologist, toxicologist, process chemist, forensic scientist and layperson are all going to look at this article and want to focus on different things -- it's a hard thing what you're trying to do! But that doesn't mean we should drop our standards. I'd recommend a withdrawal and PR. I'd be happy to make further comments there. There wouldn't be such a pressure to make and address comments promptly, and comments could be solicited from other editors without having to worry about canvassing. Please consider trying to address the comments I've made so far (and try to ensure they're addressed, we've had to cover a few things more than once because of oversights, typos etc), and I'll check back in a couple of days. --  Shudde  talk 09:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking that you change your tone with me, not your review. Just WP:DONTBEADICK by making statements like "If XYZ (which I doubt) then..." where XYZ is a statement I've made. If you want proof or further explanation, just request that. You can provide your review just as well without insinuating I'm wrong (aside, I didn't say you outright stated this - the example statement simply implies ("suggests") this). My intent with the "argument from authority" (i.e., suggesting that you need to provide a citation) was mostly so that you'd get a feel for what you're asking me to provide. E.g., there is no research at all on pharmacological differences amphetamine salts. Not a single paper. In papers and medication guides on drugs with multiple salts, the difference is ignored and the focus is instead on the isomers, sans the salt. Hence, I don't even know how I can add any more content on the salts than simply list them as I did in Amphetamine. In any event, I'll do my best to continue responding to your concerns. Just keep an open mind - there might not be coverage in the article on something simply because there isn't any relevant research on it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, as you mentioned (and as its obvious that) you've spent a lot of time on doing this review, I wanted to say thanks for all the effort you've put into this.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets move on from this. My advice is focus on the substance of my comments rather than the style, as you obviously find my style a little grating. But if I have doubts about something I'm going to say it, I'm happy to be wrong, but I'm not going to assume that I am in order to avoid offending someone. As for the salts thing, you made a claim I didn't think was correct, and it hasn't been established either way, but having such doubts is necessary for giving critical advice. I've made a few more comments today, and hope to start reading some new sections in the next day or two. I'll continue to add comments, but I'm still unsure that FAC is a better for this than PR (right now at least). -- Shudde  talk 22:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best to address your comments. I'm not sure a peer review would be as helpful as you think.  The last two peer reviews I opened received a cursory review by a single reviewer in both cases, even though I advertised them on WP:MED; one of those two PR's was for this article.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to come back and follow up on comments, however I've been super busy this week. Was hoping to have a couple of free hours today, but I've had to work (it's Saturday here). I should have time tomorrow. Yeah PR can be a ghost town -- my advice is to approach editors directly (Peer review/volunteers can help with this). -- Shudde  talk 05:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I collapsed this because it's sort of lengthy and seems resolved. Hope you don't mind - feel free to remove the tab if you object though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 15:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Axl (continued)

 * From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Long-term amphetamine exposure in some species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage, but humans experience normal development and nerve growth." Are the doses being used comparable? Berman states "Brain structural abnormalities were consistently reported in amphetamine abusers, as compared to control subjects." However it is careful not to imply causality. Which reference describes the animal findings? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm adding a review to this section that was cited in the neurotoxicity section. It depends on the species (mice vs rats vs rhesus monkeys, etc), since the addition or absence of certain enzymes results in the presence/absence of metabolites that are very neurotoxic. In some cases, this is observed at therapeutic doses. In others, at very high doses (as discussed in, the ref I added). I didn't feel it informative or even helpful to mention this; it's actually misleading in relation to humans, because the cited neuroimaging reviews and/or meta-analyses assert the opposite in ADHD individuals using stimulants. As for Berman, he's one of the erudite individuals that prefers to use "amphetamines" instead of "substituted amphetamines" when referring to meth and ecstasy. The use of the former when referring to abusers results in the misleading but grammatically correct "amphetamine abusers" instead of the grammatically incorrect "amphetamines abusers" or more accurate "substituted amphetamine abusers." There's only 1 recent paper that's shown any (and only marginally) statistically significant human neurotoxic/neuroplastic changes following the use of extremely high doses of amphetamine over a long period of time; it hasn't been cited by any other papers as of the last time I checked. This paper is the material in the big text box at the bottom of the neurotoxicity section on Talk:amphetamine.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of a very recent abuse of language like Berman's:  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Delegate notes
I've gone through and double checked whether my comments have been addressed. There are still a number of outstanding problems, so I'm reluctant to commit a lot of time on reviewing further while these remain. At the moment my problem regarding the article structure has not been addressed (I have given detailed reasons why I'm unhappy), and I'm not going to support while this is outstanding. There are also a couple of other things that haven't been addressed (an adequate discussion of the difference in PK between Lisdexamfetamine and Adderall springs to mind -- and there are a number of good sources for this). Also I'd recommend spot checks, I found a couple of potential problems regarding close-paraphrasing, and think we need to be more confident we've found them all. The article has improved significantly since I started commenting, and both Seppi and Boghog have put in a lot of work, so I'm happy to continue commenting (either here or at a PR), but I can't strike my oppose at the moment. -- Shudde  talk 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We've let this run on a good deal longer than many reviews but it can't go indefinitely. Shudde, if you're still actively working with the nominator on your objections then I guess we've nothing to lose by allowing another day or two but if there's little prospect of imminent resolution then I will have to archive this.
 * Housekeeping: There's been no source review or source spotcheck here but I believe Sasata was satisfied on both counts in his extensive GA review -- pls correct me if I'm wrong.
 * Housekeeping 2: I don't know whether there's been any changes to the images since GA but I've in any case reviewed their licensing myself just now and no issues stood out.
 * Housekeeping 3: There are quite a few duplicate links in the text. Use this script to highlight them and remove as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll prune the extra wikilinks tonight.
 * I'm hesitant to add anything comparing Adderall, Dexedrine, and Vyvanse in the amphetamine article - that's a WP:COATRACK issue and entirely ignores levoamphetamine (i.e., half the article scope). I attempted to address your concern about the structure, but this was reverted by as noted above; the change you want would require a consensus on WT:MED and very likely will be reverted by them without one. Feel free to spotcheck though, FWIW I don't think there was a close-paraphrasing issue in the PE section.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes this article should continue to follow the ordering of sections of WP:MEDMOS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some further simplification of language would be good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment we have amphetamine's use discussed before explaining what it is. This is illogical and counter-intuitive. We have "Pharmaceutical products" listed under "History, society, and culture". We have "Synthesis", "Derivatives", and "Detection in body fluids" listed under "Physical and chemical properties" (maybe behaviour in bodily fluids is a property, and therefore this belongs under this heading, but it's a stretch, and the other two make no sense under that heading at all). If you want to stick with this odd structure then that is fine, but I'm not going to support promotion -- it's just not widely accessible. pubchem has got the structure right, WP:PHARM has got it very wrong. I also find the section Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals WP:MEDMOS applies to this article. The signs "You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words" and "You use a writing style appropriate only for graduate-level courses, because that's what you see in peer-reviewed journal articles and professional reference works." apply in particular. Part of my review has been to try and fix these two problems -- but without a more logical structure, it becomes even harder. The levoamphetamine issue clear to me; it's not coat-rack at all, its a prodrug so discussing its PK properly is entirely appropriate. -- Shudde  talk 01:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Levoamphetamine isn't lisdexamfetamine - you seem to be confusing the two. Pubchem lists chemical and physical properties as the very last section and "Use" as the first section with prose.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 02:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, copy-paste and weary eyes can do that, but my point remains valid. Pubchem lists Identification first, and also Formulations/Preparations before any pharma. It also doesn't conflate Chemical and Physical Properties with topics such as Synthesis, or include other such strange hierarchies. But I'm repeating myself, as I've said all this before (see above). I'm going to leave the comments for now, my comments so far should be seen as guidance for what further work is required. At the moment there is no way this article is accessible enough to the lay-person to be a Featured Article; may do okay for someone with a medical degree, chemistry degree or degree in pharmacology, but even then I have serious issues (see above). There is a lot of jargon, a lot of funny language that reads like it was written by a pharma company's law department (I know there are Medical Advice things to be weary of, but that can't be used as an excuse). Like I said above, the article has improved, and a lot of work has been put in (by many people, including me) but I still think we are a distance from FA. If significant changes are made (including within the many sections that I have not yet reviewed), and all my comments are addressed appropriately, I'll have another look. Otherwise I'll wait until a peer review is opened. -- Shudde  talk 05:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your responses. I think everyone is acting in good faith to resolve things but there's a way to go and that can better be done away from FAC, so I'll be archiving this shortly.  I hope you'll continue to work together on the article so it can return to FAC at a later date, perhaps via PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.