Wikipedia:Peer review/Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors/archive1

Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's on a topic that is constantly evolving. Furthermore I'd like some second opinions regarding the renaming of the page from Discovery and development... to just Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as there is a lot of development history which might seem out of place with the current article title.

Thanks, Hinemash6 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think the lead currently meets WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, and can be up to 4 paragraphs long.
 * 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. However most of the lead seems to be material that is only in the lead. For example the Janet Rowley discovery in 1972 and the Src-family kinases seem to only be in the lead.
 * To make it more of a summary of the whole article, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but this lead seems to be mostly a unique introduction.
 * The article may need fewer sections / header too - try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections.
 * Things should not be both bold face and wikilinked, so fix the lead sentence, for example.
 * A lot of the current lead seems like it could be in the History section.
 * The disambig links finder tool finds three dabs that need to be fixed.
 * The refs are mostly nicely formatted, but a few are just bare URLs. 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
 * Article is generally well-cited, but some things need refs, especially towards the end of the article. For example the section 1,3,4 thiadiazole derivatives: Some interest has been with thiazol and thiadiazole derivatives and their ability to inhibit Bcr-Abl TKs. needs a ref, as does Whilst the similar binding properties to those of dasatinib, suggests the possibility of producing Bcr-Abl TKI’s from thiazole cores is real, the question remains open whether this research will just lead to a dasatinib analog or a novel way to inhibit TKs.
 * The figures are good; there should be one in the lead.
 * Make sure the figures indicate what they are based on - for example File:Bafetinib in binding site.PNG gives no source for the information it is based on.
 * The article needs to follow WP:HEAD better - typically the title of the article is not repeated in the headers.
 * Given the recent concerns with palgiarism, please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches