Template:Did you know nominations/Telepharmacy

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 10:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Telepharmacy

(

)

... that more than fifty pharmacies in North Dakota deliver pharmaceutical care without a pharmacist present using telepharmacy?

Created by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self nominated at 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC).

Article is of sufficient length, created on 26 July, hook is of adequate length, no copyvios or duplication detected. No disambiguations, external links all live. Hook is adequately supported by citation to a reliable source. My only concern is that the article appears to be entirely US-centric. A world-wide perspective is needed. In addition, I have noticed the existing article Remote dispensing. This appears to be essentially about the same thing. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The US perspective is a fair point; I'll try to find some sources discussing the subject in other areas (and I'd love some help). Remote dispensing is one specific example of telepharmacy (automated prescription-packaging machines that can dispense pre-approved meds without local oversight), but telepharmacy includes many other practices (medication aides showing prescription labels to a distant pharmacist before handing out the meds, patient pharmaceutical consultations by videoconferencing, consultant pharmacists conferring with far-off facility heads by teleconferencing, etc.). Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that there are now brief mentions of practice in Hong Kong and Ontario, but that is hardly a worldwide view. maybe you could rejig the article as one about Telepharmacy in the USA? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made some additions to the article to slightly expand its coverage of telepharmacy outside the U.S. It's still not exactly a worldwide view, but it now includes more content about Canada and it now mentions practices in several other countries. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC) And now I've added some good content about Australia. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Needs new reviewer to see whether article is now sufficiently non-US-centric for DYK. (Adding DYKmake for Orlady due to her significant additions to the article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall much better. However, the "in the US" section is still quite long. Per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, I think we should find a way to reduce it a bit more... i.e. take a more general view. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I rejiggered the article some more. I pulled Australia and Canada out of the "other countries" subsection, put Australia first because the implementation of telepharmacy there was the earliest, moved the US-centric concluding section into the US subsection (that made the US subsection longer, but it makes the rest of the article less US-centric), removed one US-related sentence that was purely a statement of opinion, trimmed a bit of unnecessary detail in the US section, and put a "globalize" template on the "Implementation" section. I'm limited in what I can do with the US content because I don't have access to most of the sources cited in that section.

I agree that the article is still overweighted to the US, but I don't think that Supplementary rule D7 (There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.) should cause this to be rejected for DYK. First, there's a lot of good content in the article -- the heavy emphasis on US examples is not going to leave the reader feeling that the article doesn't provide solid coverage of the topic of telepharmacy. Second, my search for sources about telepharmacy outside the U.S. left me with the impression that telepharmacy is not truly a global topic. This seems to exist mainly in places are relatively wealthy and that have (1) a high degree of technological sophistication, (2) people living and working in geographically remote locations, and (3) extensive legal and regulatory controls that restrict the dispensing of medicine. Because of the nexus of those four factors, I believe a lot more telepharmacy is happening in the three countries highlighted in the article (Australia, USA, and Canada) than in most of the rest of the world (and, as the article indicates, implementation is less extensive in Australia than in the US because Australia is more flexible in its regulations on dispensing medication). --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

All well and good, and the article looks better. However, we can't have it run with the orange banner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So remove the orange banner. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. I wanted another set of eyes to make that decision. --Orlady (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Was just a reminder to you, Orlady, as you were the one who asked me to check with it still on the article. Looks ready now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)