Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sertraline/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review commentary
[edit]Sertraline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Paul gene, WikiProject Medicine
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is full of primary sources which contradict secondary ones. This is against WP:MEDRS and needs address. This issue has been brought up before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. In defence of the editors: when the article reached FA status (2008), WP:MEDRS did not place such emphasis on the use of secondary sources. This was also an issue for "Lung cancer", which was promoted in 2007—it took me three months to remove/replace the primary sources in 2012. If the main authors of "Sertraline" are not going to remove the primary sources, I could do this. In the meantime, the article should be delisted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per "Nevertheless, a considerable body of later research established it as one of the drugs of choice for the treatment of depression in outpatients. Sertraline is effective for both severe depression [14]" and it's reference. For such a considerable body of research supporting this hypothesis, there is one randomized controlled trial linked. It may or may not be a true claim, but how do we know without secondary sources confirming it? --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]- Delist Agree, requirements for FA have increased a lot of 2007/2008. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looie496 reworked Bupropion when it was at FAR, so perhaps he is interested in working on this one.
Noting that this was a May 2008 promotion by me, before MEDRS was a guideline, and that the main editor of this article was strongly opposed to MEDRS becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to have time to rework this one. Or the motivation either, really, since until bupropion it's a totally generic SSRI. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already trimmed more than 30,000 bytes of text and there is a lot more needed. This article more or less needs a rewrite to update it to secondary sources and to current sources. Happy to give people a couple of weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jmh649, User:Cyclonenim, User:Axl, User: Looie496, User:SandyGeorgia and anyone else who's interested, could we please get some final comments on whether this article should be kept or delisted from FA status? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Still needs lots of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. There are still many primary sources. The list of adverse effects is unwieldy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.