Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive3


 * 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 Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2014 (diff).

Amphetamine

 * Nominator(s):  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... amphetamine; you probably know what that is. In the first and second FAC reviews, a single reviewer complained about the sentence-by-sentence standard used in the article in each review. Following the closure of the second FAC, I sought feedback from WP:MED on this and obtained project-wide consensus to retain the current citation standard. Please keep that in mind before linking the user essay WP:CITATION OVERKILL during this review.
 * Regards,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Added: this link contains all the WP:PAYWALLED papers cited in the amphetamine article. The file names reflect the ref name from the source (i.e., these papers were named according to ). Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi coordinators - since a month has passed without any new reviews, I had a question about the potential outcome of this FAC in order to determine whether or not I should spend time trying to convince other editors to take on a review; with that in mind, if no one else starts a review before this nomination closes next month, will this FAC be archived?


 * Following the closure of the last FAC, Shudde continued his review at Talk:Amphetamine/Archive_4 and eventually decided that he didn't want to continue reviewing after I sought feedback on WT:MED regarding some of his alleged problems with the article. Summarizing the first two FACs: three reviewers (Anypodetos, The Sceptical Chymist, and John) supported after their concerns were addressed; two reviewers (Aa77zz and Shudde) opposed but will not provide further feedback after I attempted to address the concerns they raised; one editor (Hamiltonstone) completed his review and remained neutral, deferring to your judgment on the level of technicality/accessibility of the article content; and lastly, two editors (Axl and Curly Turkey) didn't make a position statement or finish their reviews.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 05:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Seppi, normally we'd archive a review that's had no interest for a few weeks but I'm always loathe to do that when it's been round the block a couple of times and the nominator has made a genuine attempt to address concerns. It's also pragmatic: if we remove a nom because it's had no comments then standard practice would be to allow you  to renominate without waiting the usual two weeks and that doesn't really change the situation.  What I did do last night was list it among the FACs requiring urgent attention at the top of WT:FAC.  What you can do is invite via neutrally worded posts all the main players in the previous FAC noms (supporters, opposers and neutrals) to revisit it here, and we'll see what develops in the next week or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming
It's hard to find people to review long articles at FAC, especially ones on very technical topics such as this. Anyway, with this being your third nomination and all, I would like to apologize that you've had to wait five weeks to get your first comment. And you're going to have to wait a little bit longer, seeing as I don't get back from studying abroad in Spain until the 31st. I'll post my first comments sometime between August 1 and August 5. Since I don't know anything about pharmacology, my review will focus on prose, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the general reader.

My FAC reviews are very thorough (see Carolina Panthers and Paul Tibbets), so once my concerns are addressed that may very well be enough to get this article promoted. I log in at least once a day, so if you don't see anything by August 5 make sure to drop me a note at my talk page. I look forward to working with you on this important article. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN4: Because the cite template automatically produces the "ed." for edition statements, you shouldn't include it manually
 * FN8 and others: USFDA is a publisher not a publication. More broadly, check italicization throughout, as there are a number of things italicized that shouldn't be
 * Fixed number of columns in reflist is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Not third time lucky I'm afraid. Despite being open a month and a half, being listed among FAC urgents for a few weeks, and advice to ping previous reviewers, this still can't attract comments. I realise AmericanLemming has offered to look it over in a few days but one reviewer, no matter how thorough, does not a successful FAC make. I hope that AmericanLemming does indeed go through the article but, given the time this has been active, it will need to be outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.