Talk:Nifurtimox

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nifurtimox.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MCpollack, Sorooshaidun, Leslielai31, Devinerbay. Peer reviewers: Lisablle, Kylie.mitchell, Theo.Ndatimana, KarenLR Pharm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bad descriptions

molecular structure must be revised. Double bond rather than X Hydrogen peroxide is not an oxygen radical. Glutathione is not an enzyme. 69.72.92.13 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have reworded some of the text to address these issues. In the future, please feel free to do so yourself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to improve our page by including a "Mechanism of Action" Section that specifically outlines how the drug works. In addition, we feel that the side effects can be displayed much more clearly and could be elaborated on specifically by utilizing bullet points for clarity. Also, there is no clear Drug Interaction section and we feel this would be useful because it is a common question that most people have since they are on multiple drugs. Our action plan would be to use credible sources such as Pubmed to really get the details about this drug. This would serve as a reliable method to compare, contrast, and condense the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCpollack (talk • contribs) 03:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We plan to edit: 1. Mechanism of Action 2. Side effects 3. Drug Interactions 4. Contraindications

Our action plan would be to use credible sources such as Pubmed, to really get the details about this drug. This would serve as a reliable method to compare, contrast, and condense the information.

Most of the points included are verifiable with easy to access cited sources. However, there seems to be a lot duplicate citations. One source is cited multiple times and each time it is given a different index/citation #. It would be nice to may be re-use links. For example, drugs.com is used at various locations in the article. Since the article is only about one drug, and all information on that drug contained on drugs.com is accessible at once, it is ok to just cite it one and reuse the link. The other problem is that some of the links have a red stamp that says “Archive: information may be obsolete”. In addition, there was a link that did not take users directly to the referenced article. I also noted that for some of the sources it is not easy to verify how reliable they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo.Ndatimana (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group 18 Edit Plan

We plan to edit: 1. Mechanism of Action 2. Side effects 3. Drug Interactions 4. Contraindications

Our action plan would be to use credible sources such as Pubmed, to really get the details about this drug. This would serve as a reliable method to compare, contrast, and condense the information. MCpollack (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Words as Power - Expanding WikiProject Pharmacology

Student 1: This page reflects a neutral point of view. The information is fact-based. Any treatment recommendations are backed up by guidelines or clinical trials and are not the personal recommendations of the author. No bias was detected. KarenLR Pharm (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Student 2: Most of the points included are verifiable with easy to access cited sources. However, there seems to be a lot duplicate citations. One source is cited multiple times and each time it is given a different index/citation #. It would be nice to may be re-use links. For example, drugs.com is used at various locations in the article. Since the article is only about one drug, and all information on that drug contained on drugs.com is accessible at once, it is ok to just cite it one and reuse the link. The other problem is that some of the links have a red stamp that says “Archive: information may be obsolete”. In addition, there was a link that did not take users directly to the referenced article. I also noted that for some of the sources it is not easy to verify how reliable they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo.Ndatimana (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenLR Pharm (talk • contribs)

Student 3: For the most part, the article’s format is consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles. The title uses the scientific name of the medication. The authors used the quality and reliable sources and avoided trivia information and external link farms. Places where the article can improve on include using less medical jargon, i.e. gastrointestinal, icterus, dermatitis. The writers can consider hyperlinking the terms to another Wikipedia page or explaining them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisablle (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STUDENT 4 – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… I did not see any plagiarism. The sources listed on the reference list were accessible, and I was able to find the reference. No phrases or sentences seemed to be being copied or reproduced directly from the sources. The students listed multiple sources for each section, and it was obvious that they used information from all, but restated the ideas of multiple authors into their own words.Kylie.mitchell (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]