Wikipedia:Peer review/Barbiturate/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article was the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month for July. I'd like to see what still needs to be done to get it up to FA status. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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 August 2008.
Just a few comments
- The lead section is too short and repetitive. In the same paragraph you mention the word barbiturate at least 3 times.
- In the history section you also start every paragraph with "barbituric...". I know that the article is about barbiturate, but that is poor writing.
- The same goes for the Therepeutic uses section.
- Legal status section needs refs and also should be expanded.
- You should also check the refs #12 and #14 (Retrieved: 6-2-2008.. should be 06-02-2008)
- Search for someone to help you to copy-edit.
- Hope this helps, Jaespinoza (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- The lead sentence doesn't define barbiturates. It needs the "derivatives of barbituric acid" bit.
- I agree the lead is too short. It also uses jargon: "central nervous system depressant", "anxiolytics" and "hypnotic".
- Much of the History section should go into a Classification section as it discusses the differences between short-, medium- and long-acting barbiturates. There's no history beyond 1912, which surely isn't comprehensive. A short discussion of historic and current usage is needed.
- "Phenobarbital is used as an anticonvulsant for people suffering from seizure disorders such as febrile seizures, tonic-clonic seizures, status epilepticus, and eclampsia." is flawed. Please don't use the horrible euphemism "seizure disorders". Plus, most of those listed things aren't "disorders", they are clinical events that may well be isolated. Have a look at the Phenobarbital article. The book citation isn't complete as it needs a date. A book published in 1984 is really not an acceptable source for current drug usage.
- The "Recreational misuse and abuse" contains much that belongs elsewhere. The opening paragraph discusses intoxication (overdose, really). The middle paragraph has a sentence on the same issue. It also notes the (presumably legitimate) use of barbiturates to counter the effects of illicit drug withdrawal. Veterinary use doesn't belong in this section.
- You're going to have problems keeping the slang section well sourced. I've already removed an IP addition. I seriously doubt the accuracy of that list as 'ludes is slang for Quaaludes (Methaqualone), which aren't barbiturates. I recommend you drop it.
Colin°Talk 08:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)