Talk:Statin/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: RowanJ LP (talk · contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one.

Comments

The article overall presents an admirably detailed, even comprehensive account of this family of drugs.

I note that there are some very short subsections in 'Medical uses': 'Women' is indeed a single sentence. Perhaps we could at least merge the 'Women' and 'Children' subsections. I can see that the many subheadings have a useful function but they do make the article very bitty.

Again in 'Adverse effects', 'Neuropathy' is one very short sentence.

The Stalin hatnote is ridiculous, let's remove it.

It's not quite clear which language variant is in use; it seems to be British English, in which case I believe we should say Cyclosporin not Ciclosporin, for example: I'm sure there are several other items that need ENGVAR fixes. Would be handy to add a British English tag at the top of the article.

I found the use of English comfortable and not too technical, but then I have a Biology training. The first paragraph of the lead is good, plain, direct, and simple, but very short. It might be appropriate to say a little more up there to summarize more of the article, or of its context, in a simple way. You could, for instance, say that high cholesterol, a fatty substance found in the blood, contributes to heart disease, or something cuddly of that sort.

The claim about the 'Patient compliance' paragraph in the lead doesn't seem to be reflected in the article body. Since the lead is meant only as a summary, either move this and the refs out of the lead, or add materials giving extra details in the body.

The claim about atorvastatin in the lead says "best-selling" while the (mis)matching claim in the body says "largest-selling" (an odd phrase). Best match em'up.

The lead is fully cited ... which is non-standard for Wikipedia. If it's what you do for all drug articles, that's fine. Otherwise we should probably move the refs out of the lead.

There is a slight impression of English-speaking bias with mentions of United States and English groups in 'Primary prevention'. Reinforcing this, two European societies get a brief look in ... at the very end of the section! Perhaps there are some simple additions you could make to the article to globalise it a little; I appreciate that much work and many groups are what the French bizarrely call "Anglo-Saxon" (Westu Theoden Hal!), but it should be possible to find something from other countries.

Images

The text in File:HMG-CoA reductase pathway.svg is amazingly difficult to read; I think it's mainly the choice of a Serif typeface, but the green and brown lettering (even though bigger) looks really fuzzy. Maybe the grey background isn't helping either: it seems to be a translation of a transparent SVG background, so it'd help if that was simply set to white.

In the Statin pathway image, titles are cropped by the image border, and also tangle with the double-line grey frame around the top section of the pathway.

All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.

I tried quite a few spot-checks and they all seem to verify the claims made.

Sources

I've marked 'citation needed' for the 'Increasing LDL uptake' section, and another in 'History'.

There is a 'needs update' tag in 'Cognitive effects'.

There is a claim in 'Decreasing of specific protein prenylation' with 6 citations. Why? It'd be better to find a review article that covers the whole claim.

There is a claim in 'Cancer' with 5 citations. As above.

There is a claim in 'Available forms' with 7 citations. As above; since the claim is very simple, you can probably just pick one of the 7 and ditch the rest.

More over-citation occurs in the list of generics at the end of 'History'. Again, please slim down the citations here.

Summary

This is a fine article very nearly ready for GA. The mainly small issues above, especially those on Sources, just need attention first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, big obstacle. This is a drive-by nomination, basically all nom has done is to add one citation. Sorry but will have to fail this now, I should have checked and deleted the nomination. I hope the comments will be useful to another nominator who has actually worked substantially on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.