Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week/Successful nominations

This is the archived list of successful WP:RxCOTW articles.

Aspirin

 * Nominated at 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC); Selected as WP:RxCOTW on September 5, 2007. Received 7 votes. Removed on September 19, 2007.

Already well developed, lots of material and colour so not just a dry pharma article. A good one to get started with.

Support
 * 1) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Dr. Cash 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) JFW |  T@lk  10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Kyok  o  18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Bilz0r 09:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
 * 7) Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * This might be an excellent article to launch the WP:RxCOTW program with. It's in reasonably good shape to start, is well known (so more people will be somewhat familiar with it), and very important. Dr. Cash 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very important subject. We need to mention recent studies about aspirin resistance. JFW | T@lk  10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Along with paracetamol and ethanol, so far this is the only big biomedical issue. It seems to have 99% of the data, just organization and flair is needed Bilz0r 09:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Muscle relaxant

 * Nominated on 1 September 2007; Selected as WP:RxCOTW on September 19, 2007. Scheduled removal on October 2, 2007.

While I agree that there is work to be done on specific drug articles, I think the articles on drug classes should be more robust. This article is essentially a stub with a few laundry lists, and the talk page is fraught with discussions of inaccuracy, so this could be a candidate for a complete rewrite. I would like to see information on their mechanism(s) of action, pharmokinetics, sub-types, etc.

Support
 * 1) Steve carlson 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Dr. Cash 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Scientizzle 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments


 * I'm supporting this because I agree with the original assessment; most of the 'top' importance articles in this WP should be categories of drugs and such, as opposed to simply drug articles. Dr. Cash 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well-put - this same thing happens everywhere as teh individual species are more fun to work with in WP:birds, dinos, fungi and others I've been involved with (my id says species, while my superego chides and tries to push toward more global articles...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Would probably need more work than the others, but let's not shy away from a challenge :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Paracetamol

 * Nominated 1 September 2007 (UTC); Selected as WP:RxCOTW on October 3, 2007. Received 5 votes. Removed on October 16, 2007.

FA since 2004 - I recall some having concerns it could do with some sprucing up to bring it up on par with others. A few folk involved with FAs would be mightily relieved to see it have a dose of spring cleaning

Support
 * 1) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) JFW |  T@lk  10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Kyok  o  18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Colin°Talk 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Agree cleanup needed. For instance, there is no reference for its intravenous use, which in my experience is quite effective. JFW | T@lk  10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also seriously under-referenced, and could use a good accuracy check. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more work to do here than aspirin, but not as much as ethanol. Second in line after aspirin in my view Bilz0r 09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing that we could do with this one (if selected, or if not really) is nominate at FAR, which not only allows the graphing out of why it currently fails FA criteria (and invites others to do so as well) is that it sets up a nice review process which allows consensus for a successful fix at the end (i.e. FARC)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Paracetamol has already been featured, though. Shouldn't we spend our efforts improving an article that needs our help? --Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 14:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A significant number of featured articles have issues with under-citing, prose, formatting, layout and comprehensiveness - the main reason this hasn't been nominated at FAR is chance only. An alternate view is to focus effort on ensuring as many FAs as possible meet the standards. In any case, I figured a cleanup was good to get the ball rolling...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Use the force (Talk * Contribs)


 * It is as important to maintain our FAs as it is to push for new ones. Unsupported, these articles have a tendency to deteriorate. IMO, a FAR nomination would represent a failure of this WikiProject. However, it may be worth inviting regular FAR contributors to comment in order to best focus any improvement drive. Colin°Talk 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Receptor antagonist

 * Nominated on September 19, 2007; Selected as WP:RxCOTW on October 17, 2007. Received 7 votes. Removed on January 14, 2008.


 * Support:
 * 1) &mdash; Scientizzle 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Goodleh 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Dr. Cash 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Lilypink 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) David Ruben Talk 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (import for the subject and therefore this project (not my strongest area of knowledge, but happy to help out)
 * 6) Vlabakje90 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) CrazyChemGuy 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Let's get a little work done on some good ol' pharmacokinetics. This article is of top importance but only rated start class. The article currently lacks any sourcing. Antagonists make up a huge portion of pharmaceuticals and the mechanism(s) deserve our full attention. &mdash; Scientizzle 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm neither here nor there on this article in the round, but it is pretty bad at the moment, and will take a lot of work to get it to something reasonable. It will also take a very well considered approach, due to the fact that it isn't easily split into sections. Personally, I think it should be left alone. One person could possibly do a better job that 20. Bilz0r 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I might suggest an approach that would also focus on sister articles Agonist and Inverse agonist. &mdash; Scientizzle 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to focus more on some of these articles on more wide-ranging and general topics instead of always on the individual drug articles. It seems, though, that the individual drug articles are always more popular on the wiki, though. Dr. Cash 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree, understanding of basic pharmacology of drugs is of benefit could be intergrated into and enhance overall quality of other drug related articles. You could even introduce a concepts in pharmacology box like the concepts in chemical equilibra box as seen on the Dissociation constant page (Its just a suggestion)Lilypink 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea...I like it! &mdash; Scientizzle 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * heres possible topics that would feature
 * Agonist
 * Antagoninst
 * Partial Agonist
 * Inverse agonist

Melatonin

 * Nominated on October 1, 2007; Selected as WP:RxCOTW on January 14, 2008. Received 6 votes.


 * Support:
 * 1) Colin°Talk 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Scientizzle 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) GodGnipael°Talk 00:22, 3 October 2007
 * 5) David Ruben Talk 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Bilz0r 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * An important hormone, health supplement and unlicensed medication. The article suffers from being a random collection of (often anonymous or newbie) contributions. It has neutrality issues and intermingles well-established science with speculative research. It may also suffer from editor-extrapolation of animal research into humans. We are the #1 Google result for melatonin yet the content doesn't deserve that status at present. Colin°Talk 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As Colin said, this is the top Google result for melatonin.  Additionally, the article is an absolute mess and needs expert attention so it can be properly rewritten.  GodGnipael°Talk 00:22, 3 October 2007
 * Lots of research primary source papers, but are there good recent secondary sources (given WP:MOS prefers secondary to primary, vs WP:MEDMOS leaning more to primary) on where the mainstream opinion is going with this substance (ie promising extensive medical role, or small-time curiosity) ? Or is the jury still out and wikipedia, in its way of following behind developments, needs to come back to this in a few years time ? David Ruben Talk 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (sorry about being off-topic) Neither WP:MOS nor WP:MEDMOS suggest sources as they are style guides. However, WP:MEDRS is fairly clear in preferring reliable secondary sources (if it isn't, we need to do something about it). As far as I can see, WP's main policies and guidelines seem to have shifted into neutral wrt primary vs secondary and point out where care must be taken when using either. Colin°Talk 07:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that WP:MEDRS is not a guideline, even a proposed one, and so one does not have to follow it. Paul gene 11:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The suggested headings within Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) unter the section titled 'Drugs' seems like it may be well suited for this article. GodGnipael°Talk 21:28, 3 October 2007

Theobromine

 * Nominated on January 14, 2008; Selected as WP:RxCOTM on March 4, 2008. Received 5 votes.


 * Support:
 * 1) MessedRocker (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Bilz0r 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Dr. Cash 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I am effectively renominating this article on January 14, 2008, as we resurrect the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month in 2008. Previously, there were four votes, so this extends the deadline for the article now. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Despite being approved as a good article, the peer review suggests otherwise. Who wants to help me improve this? MessedRocker (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Warfarin

 * Nominated on February 19, 2008; Selected as WP:RxCOTM on June 16, 2008. Received 4 votes.


 * Support:
 * 1) JFW |  T@lk  08:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  M e d o s  (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Scientizzle 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) CrazyChemGuy (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * This fascinating drug has a fantastic history and is one of the most temperamental drugs. It has saved lives, prevented strokes, and killed by drug errors and haemorrhage. The article is already in a reasonable shape, and I think it might become GA or FA with a little help from its friends. JFW | T@lk  08:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Barbiturate

 * Nominated on June 2, 2008; Selected as WP:RxCOTM on July 7, 2008. Received 4 votes.


 * Support:
 * 1) &mdash; Scientizzle 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) JFW |  T@lk  00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Dr. Cash (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * This article is high-importance, but lacks sources, reads poorly, and is littered with WP:OR. &mdash; Scientizzle 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of current medical interest (e.g. thiopental), as well as a large historical angle wrt anticonvulsant and analgesic use.

Sildenafil

 * Support:
 * 1) JFW |  T@lk  21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Scientizzle 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Dr. Cash (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) CCG (T-C) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Apart from its urban legend dimensions, this article should really contain more about its well-understood mechanism of action, evidence for its use, citations for its side-effects. I discovered today that there is no actual mention of its most common use! JFW | T@lk  21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously ripe for improvement, considering several thousand hits, daily. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Several thousand hits"? Imagine that! I wonder why? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An article with that much traffic aught to be something we should work on. CCG (T-C) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)