Wikipedia:Peer review/Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors/archive1

Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's always good to be criticized. For improvement of my contribution and my future contributions, I have to know what I need to do better. Also, to distribute more knowledge for other people the site must be as good as possible. Thanks, Yrsukrutt (talk) I found this in Peer review/backlog, feel free to help out with the others there. Shii (tock) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article name is not easily found, I recommend changing it to "History of ~". However, it seems like the article could be merged into the main SNRI article. It covers a wide variety of SNRI-related topics, most of which shouldn't be shunted aside into an independent article.
 * The introduction should not start with the incomplete sentence "Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors". You might change it to "This article describes the history of serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) ..."
 * The timeline is difficult to read.
 * The "Overview of SNRIs" is a list of one-sentence paragraphs which do not explain why SNRIs are good for all these different things. It has no relation to either discoveries or developments, although either could concievably be added to supply useful context. Perhaps merge it with the "Products of SNRIs" section.
 * "Mechanism of action" is neither a discovery nor a development, but belongs in the main SNRI article. The other sections are similarly questionable. Please consider how to balance the SNRI article with this article if both are too long.
 * However, "Clinical trials" does have historical relevance, so it might belong in a shortened history article.
 * It's not clear what the "Current status" section is related to. Current status of what?
 * Otherwise, the article is generally informative and supplies important information.

Finetooth comments: Much of the content is way over my head, but I can offer a few suggestions about Manual of Style issues.


 * The tag at the top of the article should be addressed in some way. It will be hard to decide on the most appropriate layout, infobox, images, and lede until the merger debate reaches a conclusion.


 * The inline citations should be placed immediately after the punctuation (if any) rather than before it. For example, "by treating a wider range of symptoms[1]." should be "by treating a wider range of symptoms.[1]" All of the inline citations in the existing article are positioned incorrectly but should be easy to fix.


 * The point size of the typeface in Table 1 is so small that some readers may not be able to see it clearly.
 * Since the abbreviations are already explained in the main text, the separate "Abbreviations" section seems unnecessary.


 * I would not include anything in a "See also" section that is already linked in the main text.


 * The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find two links (acute and desensitization) that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)