Wikipedia:Peer review/Atorvastatin/archive1

Atorvastatin

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i want help on how can i improve this article more and more to get it to become a featured article

Please give me some advise

Thanks, Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Fvasconcellos
 * The first place you should go is the Manual of Style for Medicine-related articles: make sure the article complies with it (right now, it really doesn't, not at all :)
 * I see fact tags in the article—all such statements should be referenced or removed.
 * Long bulleted lists should be converted to prose.
 * There are many, many spelling and grammar mistakes in the article. A good copyedit is in order.
 * I'll try to review the article in depth if I can, but I'm really pressed for time at the moment. This should be enough to start on. Best wishes, and good luck! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of the above, this needs a lot of work - here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * The lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example the whole Pharmacology section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Comments from Physchim62 Physchim62 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only echo the comments above about short paragraphs and lists.
 * For a widely read article, we need to be very careful about our use of jargon (Tmax, Cmax, AUC, etc). We have to use jargon, because that is what professionals will recognise, but we also have to explain it for the layperson. I think a little more glossing of the terms would be useful in a widely read article such as this one.
 * The article doesn't make it clear that much of the data relates to Lipitor, that is the calcium salt of atorvastatin rather than the molecule shown in the infobox. There's no point in having two separate articles, but this distinction must be made clear within the article we have. All of the pharmacokinetics would be different for the sodium salt, or for the free acid, for example!
 * It would be nice if we could find the original patent, or at least a patent with the synthetic procedure. I couldn't find it quickly, otherwise I would post the reference here (!), but it must be out there and publicly available.
 * Another nice point would be a greater comparison between atovastatin and other statins, either chemically, historically, pharmacologically or whatever. This is not a unique molecule, there should be soething to compare it to.