Wikipedia:Peer review/Amphetamine/archive1

Amphetamine[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to FA status; consequently, any feedback on improvements relevant to FA criteria would be appreciated. The article is currently GA nominated.

Thanks, Seppi333 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from LT910001[edit]

Hello! A detailed and thorough text. I can't confess to know much about Amphetamines academically, but relating to the article: The following paragraphs or sentences do not have citations:

"heightened cholinergic activity likely contributes to its nootropic effects." Done
The paragraph in 'derivatives' Done
"Recreational use of amphetamine generally involves far larger doses and is therefore significantly more dangerous, involving a greater risk of serious side effects" Done

This source doesn't have an access date: "Jump up ^ Australian Drug Foundation. "Amphetamines (speed): what are the effects?". myDr.com.au."

Fixed

Citations in this paragraph "In addition, amphetamine is also used by some professional" could be lumped together

Done

There is a double line before the paragraph "Dopamine"

Fixed

Many of the side-effects listed in "physical" could be moved to sub-sections: for example, hypo and hypertension could be moved to the 'cardiac side-effects' section.

I decided to move the information from the subsections into physical and overdose instead, since they contained a mix of information from both; I figured it would be a bit cumbersome to have therapeutic dose and overdose information in each subsection. Seppi333 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One notable side-effect you may like to refer to is the development of the serotonin syndrome

Done

This will get some of the lower-hanging fruit out of the way. There doesn't appear to be any major problems with the article that would stop it from being promoted to GA status. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Seppi333 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished the last of the edit suggestions. Thanks again for the ideas/advice. Seppi333 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this review per WP:PR as it's now a GA nominee. Good luck! LT910001 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]