Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Pharmacology! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to pharmacology and drug-related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories class and importance.
Frequently asked questions
[edit]- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of WikiProject Pharmacology is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning. If you're looking for more specific and detailed help in improving an article, you might try peer review, Good Article candidate review, or Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
Article quality
[edit]Quality assessment
[edit]An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class pharmacology articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class pharmacology articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class pharmacology articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class pharmacology articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class pharmacology articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class pharmacology articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class pharmacology articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class pharmacology articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class pharmacology articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
Please note that FA-Class and GA-Class article assessments are not assigned automatically through this system. Instead, an article must be reviewed first at WP:FAC or WP:GAC. A-Class assessments are not currently used by WikiProject Pharmacology.
Quality scale
[edit]| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA |
The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
|
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | Linezolid (as of September 2009) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of cutaneous conditions (as of June 2010) |
| A |
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). |
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | (not used by this WikiProject) |
| GA |
The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
A good article is:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Alprazolam (as of March 2009) |
| B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Chloramphenicol (as of July 2010) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | Clorazepate (as of July 2010) |
| Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Semagacestat (as of April 2010) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Denaverine (as of July 2010) |
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | ATC code L04 (as of July 2010) |
Topic importance
[edit]Importance assessment
[edit]An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Pharmacology| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles
- High - adds articles to Category:High-importance pharmacology articles
- Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance pharmacology articles
- Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance pharmacology articles
- Unknown/Unassessed - Any article not rated for importance is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance pharmacology articles.
Importance scale
[edit]| Label | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | This is the highest importance. Articles rated as top-importance are generally major classes of drugs, or a major concept of pharmacology. Interestingly enough, there are no actual individual drug articles assessed at this level. | Anti-inflammatory, Beta blocker, Clinical trial, Pharmacogenomics |
| High | Articles assessed as high-importance generally include major drugs, like a prototype drug for a class, the first drug discovered in a class, or a drug that has received major media coverage. | Penicillin, Caffeine, LSD, Viagra |
| Mid | Drugs which are commonly prescribed and/or used but not the major drug in its class, are assessed at mid-importance. Examples include Daunorubicin (similar to Doxorubicin, which is assessed high, but with over 2,000 known DOX analogs, we're not putting all of them at high-importance ;-). | Kanamycin, Tetracaine |
| Low | Drugs assessed at low-importance is pretty much everything else. Not very well known, primarily research compounds that are not on the market but might be used in the laboratory for studies, etc,... | PA 824, 5-Methoxytryptamine |
Requesting an assessment
[edit]If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Please note that, if you would like an article assessed for FA or GA status, that is must be nominated at WP:FAC or WP:GAC, respectively.
Requested assessments
- I added a bit to Totomycin making it clear that no human clinical trials seem to have been done yet. It might be useful to assess the importance of this article even though there doesn't seem to be much to say about totomycin yet. Totomycin seems to have been attracting a bit of interest from Lyme disease patients due to some new findings in mice. And some people in the Lyme disease community do seem to have a tendency to obtain and take drugs based on garbled hearsay without a clear understanding of what they are. So the Totomycin article might be useful in case anyone thinking of trying to get hold of totomycin for their own use (which might not be wise at the moment!) looks at it for information. Wombat140 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to ask if someone could assess the stub article Piperacillin, where I've added more content and sources into. Much appreciated! Yilard (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! I've been adding to this stub Benadryl and believe its quality has improved so I would like to request an assessment. Thank you.Redvelvetcake5 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please assess carbon monoxide-releasing molecules. thx. Ketoacids (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I made huge changes to both Acepromazine and Sulfadimethoxine. Maybe they're not start-class anymore? —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have recently removed the Stub classification from Psychiatric pharmacy. Let me know what you think! Biochemistry&Love (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Hi! I'd like to get a peer review and assessment of Endogenous gas. Roman Bekker (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Complete, per Wikipedia:Peer review/Gaseous signaling molecules/archive1. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Hi - I'd appreciate it if someone could assess N-methylphenethylamine. Thanks! Seppi333 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Assessed. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)PLEASE NEED HELP BUILDING THE GW Pharmaceuticals AND THE Hortapharm B.V. PAGE, THEY ARE THE BIGGEST LEGAL CANNABIS GROWERS IN THE WORLD AND HAVE TEAMED UP WITH BAYER, MONSANTO AND THE DEA.Vjiced (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)I'm requesting re-assesment of these two articles. Vjiced classified them both as High importance to four different Wikiprojects. I strongly doubt that they're actually high importance to any of them given the amount of editor attention they've received. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 02:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- My group created the Discovery and development of thalidomide and its analogs page. We would like assessment and comments about the page. The page was created as a part of our course in Medicinal Chemistry in the University of Iceland. We are 3 pharmaceutical students on our 5th and final year of study, hoping that this page will expand in the coming years. HlynurT (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I updated the Nisoxetine page, please let me know what you think. It's primarily a research drug, so not much clinical data. - Julia User:Juliagall- Rated C. Will nominate it for DYK and probably do a bit more copyedit over the next few days. Nice work. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would suggest the article Nitrazepam be re-written by someone without such a selective dislike of nitrazepam. It reads like an amateur anti-benzo rant, and its highly selective references to pubmed articles is likely to mislead. I would downrate it to 'C', not 'B', as its overall effect is to terrify people taking this drug, not inform them. --Posted by 120.148.2.96 (talk · contribs).
- Cross-posted at WT:PHARM#Nitrazepam. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The article cites the majority of the biased statements to a selection of outdated primary research as well as case reports. Should be pruned to recent review articles and teaching texts according to WP:MEDRS. Remove first everything cited to case reports and primary research, in particular medical claims based on in vitro results with rat cells, cancer cells etc. Virtually everything has once been observed, investigated and contradicted in primary research. Virtually everything has been once reported in a case report of some patient. 70.137.146.59 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)