Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week

The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week is a project of WikiProject Pharmacology in an effort to improve drug-related articles on wikipedia. Articles may be selected every week or every two weeks, depending on the article and the present situation, to be collaborated on by editors. The article may or may not yet exist. The topics should include anything related to Pharmacology; it could either be an article about a specific drug, or an article about a drug process, drug design, or a particular class of drugs. The aim is to have a featured-standard article by the end of the period through widespread cooperative editing.

The project aims to fill gaps in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of. Any registered user can nominate and vote on articles (see Voting below). This collaboration uses approval voting. You do not have to be a professional in the field of pharmacology or medicine to participate; the opinion of laypeople is valued both for article suggestions and to help ensure that articles are not too technical. New articles will be selected every Wednesday (see the record of previous collaborations). This collaboration is still new; rules may change or be bent as we find our footing.

Voting

Please vote in favor of as many candidates as you like; oppose votes have no effect (approval voting is used). Any registered user may vote for an article, provided that account's first edit occurred before the nomination. You do not have to have any special knowledge of pharmacology or medicine to nominate or vote for an article.

To vote for an article, simply edit the appropriate section by adding # ~~~~, and increment the votes= counter in {{RxCOTW}}.

If you believe that a topic does not fall within the scope of this project, please mention your objections in the "Comments" section. Every Wednesday, the article currently with the most votes will be selected to be the new collaboration, although collaborations may be extended from time to time (for instance, during featured article candidacy). In the case of a tie, the article nominated first will be selected. Articles not selected must receive at least two votes per week to remain in consideration. If a nomination fails to achieve sufficient votes, it may be renominated after at least two weeks. You may wish to see the archive of successful nominations.

List of past and present maintainers

1. Dr. Cash, founder, August 2007

Nominations

Nominations may be made at any time. Nominators must be registered users. To make a nomination, follow the following steps:

I	Add nomination Copy and paste the following template to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. ===Template:SrcLink=== {{RxCOTW|start=September 14, 2024|votes=1}} ; Support: # ~~~~ ; Comments: * (put your reason for nomination) ~~~~ ---- Under "comments" please describe needed work.
II	Notify After submitting the new nomination, go to the nominated article and put {{RxCOTWnom}}{{to do}} on the top of the article's talk page. (skip {{to do}} if it's already present on the articles talk page)

The next RxCOTW will be chosen on October 23, 2007.

Nominations for the next RxCOTW

Receptor antagonist

Support

1. — 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)

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. — 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. — 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! — Scientizzle 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • heres possible topics that would feature
      • Agonist
      • Antagoninst
      • Partial Agonist
      • Inverse agonist

Pharmacological concepts

• Affinity
• Efficacy
• EC50
• IC50
• Drug Potency
• Allosteric modulation
• Dose Response Curve
• Pharmacodynamics
• Pharmacokinetics

(At the moment I'm trying to expand alitte to these topics abet very slowly)

---

Melatonin

Support

1. Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
3. — 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 Wikipedia: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

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)

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)

---

Vasodilator

Support

1. Jeff Dahl 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Wisdom89 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I was shocked to see such an important topic have so little material. I fixed the intro and added a ref, but this really needs some attention. There is lots and lots to do, and I know we have some cardio experts out there. Jeff Dahl 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. This particular article needs attention. I'm quite familiar with cardiac physiology and would be more than happy to help. Voluminous lists are usually an eyesore. Wisdom89 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Related topics in other collaborations

Nuclear magnetic resonance are nominated for the Science collaboration of the week.

Participants

Any participant of WikiProject Pharmacology is welcome to participate. Additionally, we welcome other contributors who may have an interest in the topic being collaborated on. Please add your name to the list on the main WikiProject Pharmacology page.

Tools

• Record of previous nominations
• Successful nominations
• Expired nominations

{{CurrentRxCOTW}} is the banner for the current collaboration. You may wish to place it on your user or talk page.

{{RxCOTWnom}} is placed on the talk pages of articles currently being considered for RxCOTW. It places articles in Category:RxCOTW candidates.

{{RxCOTWprev}} is placed on the talk pages of articles that were previous RxCOTWs. It should always be substituted.

{{RxCOTWnew}} sets up new nominations. It should always be substituted.