Talk:2-Arachidonyl glyceryl ether

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 2-Arachidonyl glyceryl ether was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 11, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cannabis (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:2-Arachidonyl glyceryl ether/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (話) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The article's lead is not sufficient and does not summarize the article's content. Information should be included about its binding to the CB1 receptor and its biological relevance. (Present the reader with information that will make the reader want to read more)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    There were several errors in citation style that I fixed. Originally, the first 4 references of the article were all citing the same article but each in a different format. Be sure to look over these things before submitting an article for GA review in the future.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    There is not enough coverage of major aspects: How is this molecule synthesized? metabolized? The Fezza et al. 2002 paper cited in the article probably has information about its tissue distribution. This would be very relevant to know.
    B. Focused:
    The text is not very focus and not organized very well. There are too many irrelevant details about the method in the "Discovery" section. Replace this with information such as its discovery in places other than the brain and the dispute over its discovery. Also to be included in that section is not just about how they found the molecule, but how they found that the molecule was an endogenous ligand to CB1. Also, I would rename the "Production" section to "Physiologic functions" since it contains info about what the molecule does in the body. The pharmacology info in that section should be moved to the "Pharmacology" section.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm sorry to say that this article is not yet ready for GA status since there is still a lot of work to be done. But thank you for the work you have done on this article. If you intend to build on this article in the future, I would be happy to give you another peer review. I would love to see this article progress in the future.