From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


As already suggested above, I think this article should be split into two (similar to insulin and insulin (medication)). I do not see why the drug is automatically more important that an neurotransmitter. In addition to the problem of the infoboxes, the suggested order of sections recommended by WP:MCBMOS and WP:MEDMOS conflict. Most of the prose in this article is about the neurotransmitter and not the drug. Putting the drug section first puts indue weight on the drug. We could solve all these inconsistencies by splitting the article into Norepinephrine and Norepinephrine (medication). Boghog (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

How about a disambig. Than Norepinephrine (neurotransmitter) and Norepinephrine (medication). I think that would give equal weight to both topics and would be a good way forwards for these types of issues. Each type of article can than get the proper infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I respect your opinion Seppi333,but isn't a middle ground always best ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're referring to an Argument to moderation, the answer is no. It's a logical fallacy. Sizeofint (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The neurotransmitter is unequivocally the primary topic. There is absolutely no reason to DAB the norepinephrine page just for the sake of a medication that the vast majority of readers probably wouldn't care to read about anyway. How many incoming backlinks to this page do you think are related to the drug as opposed to the neurotransmitter? Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Neurotransmitter as a parenthetical DAB isn't even a sufficient scope anyway, since it's also a hormone. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO that norepinephrine is a medication is the main topic. I however see a compromise as reasonable in this situation as others disagree. We know that 5% of google searches are for health care information (diseases and medications). People care a great deal about this content.
What we could do is create a disambig with one for the medicine and one for the neurotransmitter/hormone and see were most people go. If they are within a factor of 5 or 10 of each other than we keep the disambig. If one is more than 10 fold the other than it becomes the primary article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to quantify this, but I note that dobutamine, a drug more or less comparable to norepinephrine in clinical usage as I understand it, shows about 10000 page views over the past 30 days, whereas the norepinephrine article shows over 40000. That suggests to me that 3/4 of the views relate to other aspects. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Dobutamine is way way less used than norepinephrine clinically. While I frequently ( a couple of times a week use norepi) I have never used dobutamine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not treat the norepinephrine page in the same way as epinephrine is treated - with the drug mentioned in the lead and just incorporated into the article? --Iztwoz (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am OK with a disambig. Merging of two lengthy infoboxes is messy and produces an excessively long infobox that doesn't function well for what is currently the main subject of this article, the norepinephrine neurotransmitter, Currently there are only two short paragraphs ("Medical uses" and "Drug interactions") that deal specifically with the norepinephrine medication. Adding additional medication specific sections (WP:PHARMOS#Medications) on "Contraindications", "Adverse effects", "Overdose", and especially "Pharmacology" (that overlaps with "Function") would clash with the present organization of this article. Boghog (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Informal RFC: How to split?[edit]

The section above appears to be reaching a consensus to split the article in two, one relating to the drug, the other to the hormone/neurotransmitter. However there isn't yet a consensus on how to arrange the split. There are basically three possibilities: (1) No default -- norepinephrine becomes a disambig page, referring to the other two; (2) default=drug --- norepinephrine is about the drug, norepinephrine (hormone and neurotransmitter) is linked from the top of it; (3) default=neurotransmitter -- norepinephrine is about the neurotransmitter and hormone, norepinephrine (drug) is linked from the top of it. Which do you favor? Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I favor default=neurotransmitter for two reasons: first, I think it will be the most common meaning readers are looking for; second, at a practical level, the norepinephrine article is currently the target of several hundred wikilinks, and by my count approximately ten relate to it as a drug. It would be much easier to disambiguate those than the others, and much easier to set up future wikilinks correctly. Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also favor default=neurotransmitter, the neurotransmitter came long before the drug. Norepinephrine is a drug because it is a hormone/neurotransmitter, not the other way around. Neurotransmitter is the more fundamental concept, the drug is an application of that concept. Boghog (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The question is which topic are people more likely looking for rather than which came first historically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I favor default=no default. As explained above we could run an experiment to see which is the most common topic the generally population is looking for. I have a feeling that it is the medication. But happy to compromise and just go with no default. Am also happy to run an experiment and let our readers decide by basing it on pageviews to each article after three months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the suggested experiment is the best idea, but if for whatever reason the page views for both pages are a tie, or very near to it, we should default to the neurotransmitter, as it is a more fundamental topic. After all you tend to teach physiology before you teach pathophysiology and pharmacology. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Default=neurotransmitter; if this page became a dab, every single backlink to this page would need to be cleared or adjusted. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • And that is bad how? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know if you're serious, but it's bad because there are hundreds of them -- just click on "what links here". Unless it can be automated, that means several hours of mind-numbing work. Looie496 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • They need to be gone through to make sure they are going to the right place anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I have already done that. In the great majority of cases it is obvious from the title of an article that it's referring to the neurotransmitter/hormone aspect. In all the cases where I thought there might be any doubt, I looked at the article, and altered the link if it was indeed referring to the drug aspect. But that's a tiny minority of cases. Looie496 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Default=neurotransmitter. I'm actually not convinced that we need to split the page at all, which is why I hesitated to comment until now. But seeing that there is an emerging consensus to split, neurotransmitter should take priority over drug, as the more fundamental topic that is always taught first, per other editors above. I have low enthusiasm for the "no default" option, because the resulting DAB would apparently find itself as the only page on Wikipedia to be in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic. (Really? I'm kind of surprised, actually.) The "experiment" seems unnecessary to me, and there would be a question about how long to let it run (what if there's a burst of interest in the basic science in those first three months?). And, what seems to me to be the most important consideration is that, in any case, there will be a hatnote at the top of both pages – and that means that not being the default is pretty trivial for our readers. Those readers coming here for medical information will still find it useful to be aware of the underlying science, and the additional information that they seek will be a mere click away, right from the very top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 Note: I just split off the drug-related material into norepinephrine (drug). This is not an obstacle to the "no default" option if we ultimately choose to go in that direction. As I noted above the main obstacle to that option is that it would require several hundred wikilinks to be changed. My action would be an obstacle for the "default=drug" option, but that's not really on the cards anyway at this point. If the name I gave the new article is suboptimal, it can easily be changed. Looie496 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 Note: I have now fixed all of the wikilinks that should point to norepinephrine (drug), as far as I can tell. If we decide to go with "default=neurotransmitter" no further changes are needed to wikilinks or article structure, but (to repeat) nothing that I have done up to this point is an obstacle if we ultimately decide to go with "no default". Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norepinephrine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Good. I won't be online much between Jan 5 and Jan 14, but I'll keep up as much as I can. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

The process[edit]

First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.

I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.

This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.

Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary reports[edit]

Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:

So far so good, peer reviewer tool analysis incomplete.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.

I am back from vacation.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:


It is reasonably well written.
 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) prose
Comment - This sentence is located in the last paragraph and seems to be quite long and have its share of clauses: "Early in the twentieth century Walter Cannon, who had popularized the idea of a sympatho-adrenal system preparing the body for fight and flight, and his colleague Arturo Rosenblueth developed a theory of two sympathins, sympathin E (excitatory) and sympathin I(inhibitory), responsible for these actions."; I was going to break it up into two sentences rather than write all this, but thought you might like to do it yourself since it seems to be quite an important idea.
Thank you, it reads much better. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar[edit]

This is still ongoing.
Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Manual of style[edit]

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)

I edited the lead and want you to take a look at it to tell me you think it is appropriate. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I made a very small copy-edit, but other than that it seems fine to me. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC),

Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Word choice[edit]

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual, accurate and verifiable[edit]

This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.

 Note: The article would be better if you sourced this statement: "...norepinephrine can either be broken down by monoamine oxidase...". Its one of those statements that I know is true, but the source only supports the re-uptake of norepinephrine. I went to the monamine oxidase article and couldn't find a source there. I have a textbook, perhaps I can find the ref...but you should also look. It is an important 'thing' about the regulation of norepinephrine and I would feel better if the info was sourced. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I found and inserted a source. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 Note: - question really. Does norepinephrine have an effect or is it used by the parasympathetic nervous system? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't be surprising if it had some sort of inhibitory effect, but I haven't seen any source stating that it does. It is not used by the parasympathetic system in any way as far as I know. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It does have a 'pacemaker'-type of effect, just heard about it in lecture on Thursday but I will insert that later. You've done most of the work and this one comment of mine does not need to 'fixed' for the article to become a good article.
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference section[edit]

Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.

Broad in its coverage[edit]

The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.

 Note: Would it make the article better to describe the effects on the heart more specifically like increasing heart rate and cardiac output, stroke volume? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess you mean adding a paragraph to the Functions section focused on the heart. That would make sense to me, if that's what you mean. Looie496 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

Good to go.


The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.


The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.

"Graphic artist" is too strong. I have created a bunch of images, but in this case all I did was change the labels from French to English. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief

  • For the bullet-point list in the Sympathetic nervous system, remove the periods at the end because none of them are sentences (they're all fragments except the ones with multiple sentences). Also, try to condense each bullet-point into just one sentence.
Red XN I don't agree with this. It's hard to explain exactly why, but it feels wrong to me and I think it would look weird to most readers. I would welcome an opinion from Bfpage. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Back from vacation, very, very sorry to keep you waiting. I will take a look immediately.
I took a look at the list. Having periods at the end of the phrases is not exactly grammatically correct, but that will not be a reason I would not give the article a good review. I do know that the FA process would assess this more strongly, but I will not. It is fine. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • wikilink anatomy words like locus coeruleus or, if it doesn't have its own article, briefly explain it.
Already done I agree with this suggestion, but I think the article already follows it, except in cases where a term is used multiple times in a section, in which case the MOS says that it should only be wikilinked on the first occurrence. Pointers to specific instances that ought to be linked would be welcome. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
One link per term is sufficient and preferred.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The article contains the term locus coerruleus about four or five times. Though this does not need to be changed for a GA review, what are the thoughts behind wiki-linking it so many times?
Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
My preference would be to not change that. The term is likely to be unfamiliar to lots of readers, and all the wikilinks are in different sections, far from each other. It seems to me that there is value in not forcing the reader who wants to look it up to explicitly type the term in order to find it -- especially given the difficulty of spelling it. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the History section, change "Early in the twentieth century Walter Cannon..." to "Early in the twentieth century, Walter Cannon..."
Red XN This is basically a style issue, and my preference is to follow a style that minimizes the use of commas. But if Bfpage agrees that the sentence needs more commas I will change it. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a similar editing style and use clauses and commas when I am forced to by the avoidance of copyright issues. I also use sentences without commas, or clauses since I edit in the same way. In my opinion, the sentence does not 'have to' be changed. But really this seems like such a minor thing. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For ref no. 57 (P. Holtz), add the parameter |language=German
 Done Done, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive comments and your participation in the review. It looks you did a pretty good run through the article and found things that I likely might have missed. I would quietly suggest that the time it took to write the sentence about the periods might have been greater than the time it would have taken to remove them. The more eyes looking at this review, the better. The very best of regards,::  Bfpage |leave a message  12:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to have proposed changes raised here, particularly since I disagree with some of these and would much rather discuss them than be forced to decide whether to revert them. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick comment[edit]

I noticed ref 1 doesn't have the info it's being used to cite (unless it's in one of the links?). Could a more precise ref be added? Also, isn't the "upon the kidneys" translation for adrenaline and epinepherine (i.e. epi- = upon, neph- = kidney)? What does the nor- add? delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add ref 1; I'll look for a better source. The rationale for "nor" is explained in the Structure section -- I don't think it is interesting enough to belong in the lead. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 has fixed this by adding another ref, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I still don't see it, I just see a page of links with no mention of norepinephrine. Can someone link to the specific page with this info? Or provide a quote? delldot ∇. 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the 2nd instance to it. It's still citing the sentences about the terms norepi/noradr in latin/greek. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure which instance you were referring to. I've supplied a different ref for the etymological information, in which it can more easily be found in the article (the History section). Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it ok that this is defining adrenalin, not noradrenaline? Seems odd that that's in the lead with the etymology of the wrong substance. Are you sure the 'nor' is not worth mentioning in the lead? I'm not trying to be a plague here, if you're both confident I can drop the matter. delldot ∇. 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There's an entry for Nor- if someone wants to incorporate it. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Many apologies[edit]

I have had many family issues and I profusely apologize in the delay of this review. I will jump in again. I'll be finishing the review up with my other account. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) otherwise known as Bfpage

I've been mostly out of action for the last couple of weeks, so I'm actually happy that not much has happened here during that time. I do look forward to getting this in motion, though. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I do feel badly because the other reviews that I have done have been completed in a week or less. I'm back to work. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

splitting biosyntheses[edit]

This RfC was closed because a clear consensus was reached to not split the paragraph into a seperate article. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 08:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosineMinimobiler (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is your opinion. The article was also passed as a good article - you need to propose the change in material not just go ahead and mention this afterwards.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: the talk page post was made before the edit, check time. now, the articles are bloated. call others of wiki project medicine.Minimobiler (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Minimobiler: regardless - the entry on the talk page needs to be a proposal left for comments from others.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: bring the others.Minimobiler (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose the biosynthesis section you mention is only a small part of this article - about 4-5 paragraphs. It seems needless to split each paragraph to a new page. An interested reader can click on the wikilinks to view each page (eg dopamine, tyrosine) to view more information about how they are synthesised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the biosynthesis of an arbitrary neurotransmitter from an associated basic dietary constituent (e.g., amino acids) is a fairly important subtopic that should be covered in any neurotransmitter article. Norepinephrine is derived from dopamine which can be derived from other dietary components or obtained in the diet; however, dopamine can't cross the blood-brain barrier, so dietary dopamine can't function as a neurotransmitter or be metabolized into norepinephrine in the CNS; consequently, almost all of the norepinephrine that is produced in the brain is derived from dietary constituents that are metabolized into dopamine and then norepinephrine.
    FWIW, norepinephrine can also be synthesized in humans from para-octopamine by CYP2D6 (PMID 24374199), but that's not a significant biosynthetic pathway. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have much of an opinion about whether the section should be shortened. I would however prefer for it to be located further down in the page -- it is probably too complex for most readers and is likely to make some stop reading when they encounter it. Looie496 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is useful to see how the biosynthesis of norepinephrine relates to the biosynthesis of other neurotransmitters in the same biosynthetic pathway. At the same time, I think the size of the figure could be considerably reduced without loss of readability. Boghog (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If someone wants to know "how does the body make norepinephrine?", the logical place to start is from the amino acid source. The diagram should be re-drawn as an SVG, though. I'll put that on my to-do list. --Slashme (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As it stands the idea of shortening the article is inappropriate. The subject simply happens to be complex and we could be doing nobody any favours if we tried to simplify it by evisceration. The run-of-the-mill reader is not likely to read much of this article anyway, so a bit of extra complexity is not really prohibitive. It would be perfectly possible to improve matters by expanding the content and restructuring the topic into separate articles coherently linked, but you won't manage that by by snipping out arbitrary chunks of material; it would require a serious design effort. JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "biosynthesis" section is proportionate to the rest of the article. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose My opinion: The biosynthesis section is important to the article, is only 4 paragraphs, several hundred words. and not worth splitting into separate articles. Comment write the RFC with a specific question of the text to be changed, before and after. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.