Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paracetamol/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 00:40, 25 February 2009 [1].

Paracetamol edit

Review commentary edit

WP Medicine and WP Pharm and Maralia notified.
Question Why wasn't WP:PHARM notified at the project Talk page as well as the Announcements section? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to ask User:Jmh649 that. I assumed he did. The notice atop of this thread (not added by me) says the project was notified.Xasodfuih (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry just did not have time. Has someone done that yet? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Xasodfuih (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completed the notifications (for future reference, pls see the WP:FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern with this article is 2(c) lack of consistent citations. Says it is an anti inflammatory in dogs. That it can be given iv. Both of these with not refs

done I think I've fully sourced and verified the veterinarian section. It says a bit less than before, but it's verifiable. There are some experimental veterinarian treatments, but I feel that discussing these is too much for a general article on paracetamol. (see the book source I used on gbooks) Perhaps these can be added to Paracetamol toxicity.Xasodfuih (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many small things though as well.

  1. I do not think toxicity is a good overview. No discussion of treatment for example.
  1. Do not link the see also section. This should be discussed in the text.
  2. Some issues with the prose. Some one sentence paragraphs.
    • Feel free to expand the stuff about the snakes. Any other occurrence? Xasodfuih (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some issues with ref formatting. All we get with one of them is [1].
    • done. It was in the infobox. I think the infobox data normally doesn't have footnotes. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The section on effectiveness is call "Comparison with NSAIDs"
    • It seems reasonable to compare it with NSAIDs. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The history section starts off with discussion of anti inflammatory in general before getting to acetaminophen. It also says "The product was first sold in 1955 by McNeil Laboratories as a pain and fever reliever for children, under the brand name Tylenol Children's Elixir." With out mentioning which product.
    • done Rewrote most of that section. The are still a couple of issues there, see below. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page has fallen out of FA status.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing the article; will post comments as I go along. To start with:

  • The 1st paragraph in the history section is quite convoluted with lots of parenthetical remarks.
    • done I commented it out since it seemed WP:SYNT to me. Couldn't find a source to support that chain of consequences. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple non-obvious statements without a source in the history section. (tagged)
  • The synthesis section seems correct, but it appears written from a pedagogical rather than industrial perspective. Some references of how APAP is actually produced nowadays would be better.
  • The mechanism of action section is up to date an well referenced, but the prose could be better there. I've got skimmed over PMID 17227290 and it has some historical info which could be used to fix the 1st section as well. Later today time allowing.

Xasodfuih (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Linked to Bernard Brodie (biochemist), a new stub in need of expansion. --Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress:

  • The veterinary section has been fully sourced. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have source checked and updated the history section. There a few {fact}s left without sources about British use and recent patents. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems the UK stuff was added by User:Medos2 who isn't active here anymore since his graduation. Oh, well. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at revamping the lead and replaced the image in the "Metabolism" section with a more compact, color-coded SVG. I've also expanded the section a bit. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just a comparison with NSAIDs section for efficacy and safety is kinda awkward. I added there a bit more about the Lancet study there, but really, we should restructure that. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, that study resulted in 3 pages of letters to the editor in the Jan 10-16 Lancet. I have the feeling that a wiki article about the study is forthcoming. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the BBC lay summary for the Lancet study I realized there are WHO indications for use of paracetamol. Could someone track them down and summarize them in a bit more detail? Xasodfuih (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IV acetaminophen

Never heard of it used iv. Found a reference for it. http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/1/90 Not however mentioned by lexidrugs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. The drug is inactive until metabolized in the liver, so administration via the stomach (oral or otherwise)) should be far more effective. I suppose administration via the stomach is not always feasible. --Una Smith (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably confused with proparacetamol, which was used in earlier attempts to produce intravenous paracetamol. --WS (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes, I did confuse them, and I also misread the Metabolism section. How about reorganizing it to stress that NAPQI is the toxic agent? The fact that NAPQI may be derived from paracetamol via multiple pathways is secondary, isn't it? --Una Smith (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "NAPQI is primarily responsible for the toxic effects of paracetamol, rather than paracetamol itself; this constitutes an excellent example of toxication" was clear enough :) NAPQI cannot be formed via multiple pathways, as the section and accompanying image clearly explain; it's quite the opposite. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Metabolism section confusing, so I rewrote it. I tried to only move the information around, not change any of it. Could someone please check that the sources are attached to sentences appropriately? --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Toxicity section has additional information about metabolism of NAPQI. --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We use it quite a lot in patients directly postoperatively (it is called Perfalgan here).--WS (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History of "rediscovery"

I rewrote this to provide a better account of what happened in the late 1940s. It's pretty insane than some reviews/books attribute the rediscovery to Lester and Greenberg, others to Broodie and Axelrod (or replace Axelrod with Flinn) and a few manage to mention both teams (but even those mention only 4 of the 5 people involved.) Phew... Xasodfuih (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite a few sources talk of the superiority of paracetamol over phenacetin demostrated by B & A, but cite the wrong paper: the 1948 one about paracetamol and acetanilide instead of the 1949 one about paracetamol and phenacetin. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N.B.: This source manages to tell the story well. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Box with brand names

This recent edit made me rethink the usefulness of that box. I think that the major brand names are already mentioned in historical context. Since the complete list of brands is likely to be extensive I'd rather remove the box and add a link to the list of paracetamol brand names in the see also section. Or even mention the list explicitly somewhere in the text. Perhaps someone can find some market data for these, but it seems unlikely that a comprehensive worldwide branding info is available for a generic drug. What do you think? Xasodfuih (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolism diagram needs updating to reflect mechanism of action

AM404 is missing from that diagram because it was made using a toxicology book as source (which didn't bother with AM404). Bertolini et al. includes it; the say AM404 is metabolized in the CNS. If you need the pdf for inspiration let me know, although I have the impression that other editor here read it too (or at least added extra references to it). Xasodfuih (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, although I think we should be careful not to give too much prominence to the role of AM404, which is still being studied. It's certainly responsible for some of the analgesic effects for paracetamol, but it's still only a proposed/partial mechanism of action, and we should keep that clear. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Figure for toxicology section?

A nomogram that relates the plasma levels of acetaminophen and time after ingestion to the predicted severity of liver injury is available in some books. Anybody feel like reproducing it? Xasodfuih (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future work notice: Due to being fed up with the senseless invocation of WP:THISANDTHAT by cliquish admins that do that to cover their lame mistakes I'm not going to contribute to this article (or to Wikipedia in general) in the near future. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Article still has a good deal of referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to removal (for now). The article has seen some significant improvements since this review began, but there are still some unresolved issues: comprehensiveness (article is sketchy in some areas like mechanism of action), and presentation (pharmacology should be less comparative and the recent association studies of side effects need some polish). I think these problems will eventually be hammered out, and I see a renomination in the not so distant future. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Would agree with the above comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Paracetamol/archive1&oldid=1078811883"