Talk:Propylhexedrine/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to be reviewing this article. There have been major improvements to the text since the last GA nomination, but not everything has been addressed; hopefully that can be taken care of through the course of this review. I'm still working on reviewing sources and getting a full grasp on the prose corrections needed. Recon rabbit 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summarily, as defined Merriam Webster, means the following: “In a few words”. It is no different then stating ‘in summation’ or ‘briefly put’. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the lead section and interactions. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word is understood. It's just an unusual construction to see in the encyclopedia style. Thank you for addressing the points noted here. Recon rabbit 16:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to source [30], that is racemic. Generally, a drug product in the U.S. is assumed racemic or such unless otherwise indicated. See cetirizine (Zyretc) and levcetirizine (Xyzal). One is indicated simply as cetirizine, while the other is specifically indicated as levcetirizine. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"Summarily" and the surrounding information summarizing the quotations above it isn't necessary. The main use of the phrase summarily on Wikipedia is in reference to summary execution, something I found trying to find other uses. Otherwise, understandable prose with the text only becoming technical when necessary.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section is extremely short and does not incorporate most of the relevant information from the article. Some things to include would be the history of the drug, possibly some preparation methods and society and culture information. Pseudoephedrine is a decent model of a similar decongestant with a better lead.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): {{GAList/check|?}
Source check: (numbering based on this revision)
[1] Y

[2] Y

[3] N Delivered dose amount is not indicated. Replaced with [30] which contains this information.

[4] Y Dose size and oral tablet preparation is not mentioned.

[7] Y

[9] Y Does "Talk with the doctor before you give this drug to a child younger than 6 years old." mean the same thing as "contraindicated"?

[11] Y

[12] Y

[13] Y

[14] Y

[15] Y (though only based on abstract)

[18] Y

[19] ~~Y Cannot confirm that this supports the entirety of the "Interactions" section.~~ Done

[26] Y

[27] Y

[30] Y Does not indicate the active ingredient is racemic.

[34] Y

[35] Y

[42] Y

[45] Y

[76] Y

[81] Y

[82] Y
C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
~~Some quotes are a little long, but the FDA and IHA have no copyright on their work, which makes it less of a concern. I don't know what the status of the Army website is.~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The photo of propylhexedrine HCl is of very low quality and also causes a WP:SANDWICH issue with the structure image on the other side of the page (though this isn't a huge issue). The same problem appears with Glenn E. Ullyot and the inhaler image and the photos of containers at the Brand Names header. It may be for the best if all of the product images are moved to the left and a {{Clear}} template is added at the end of "Eventin".
Overall:
Pass or Fail: