This is a listing of expired nominations for WP:RxCOTW.
- Nominated on September 2, 2007. Received one vote. Removed nomination on September 19, 2007.
Nominated because recent editors have been very scientific. The article bufotenin has plenty of citations but could use more facts.
Support
Comments
- Nominated on September 1, 2007. Received three votes.
{{
RxCOTW}}
Promoted to GA status on May 10, 2007. Article is in reasonably good shape, but could use a bit more work to bring it up to featured status, mainly in the realm of wikify-ing text, and maybe adding a little more information.
Support
- Dr. Cash 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- JFW | T@lk 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- In excellent shape; probably needs nothing more than some expansion and will be good to go. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- It needs more specific sources (instead of the Mayo Clinic etc) and mechanism of its toxicity. Can't
biosynthesis of doxorubicin be merged in?
JFW |
T@lk
10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I actually suggested it be split out; it's quite long (my main concern; shifts weight from more clinically relevant content), and not as polished as the main article. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nominated on September 2, 2007. Received three votes.
Nominated as a GA on December 8, 2005, so it's been awhile. As it stands now, it's dangerously close to losing GA status (mostly referencing and some organizational issues). It's an important drug, obviously, so problems should be addressed.
Support
- Dr. Cash 05:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- JFW | T@lk 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- — Scien tizzle 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- Of immense relevance, but perhaps not classically thought of as a pharmaceutical substance!
JFW |
T@lk
10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Very broad article; hard to keep focused, comprehensive and accurate on all fronts. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's very much a " drug", arguably one of the most widely abused, but it's uses go well beyond the pharmaceutical realm, as it's also a major fuel, which I is why I'm a bit hesitant to make it the first one selected for this project. Dr. Cash 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ethanol isn't really the article we're after is it (most of that page is on physio-chemical and political issues). Really it's the Effects of alcohol on the body article that pharmacologists should be interested in. Bilz0r 09:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nominated on September 18, 2007. Received one vote.
- Support
- Comments
- Nothing's even been written, I wrote some basic stuff but no one has even added this until today. Check it out, similar to tramadol. First new narcotic painkiller in 25 years. Coleisman 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a great subject, but I'm not sure that it's the best choice for collaboration right now. I've been trying to find information about the drug, but it's so new that not much is out there in the scientific literature (most google searches go to press releases which mostly just reiterate what's in the article already). Dr. Cash 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support
- Comments
- I was shocked to see such an important topic have so little material. I fixed the intro and added a ref, but this really needs some attention. There is lots and lots to do, and I know we have some cardio experts out there. Jeff Dahl 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This particular article needs attention. I'm quite familiar with cardiac physiology and would be more than happy to help. Voluminous lists are usually an eyesore. Wisdom89 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nominated on December 10, 2007. Received one vote.
- Support
- Comments
- Top-rated in importance, this is a very weak article. The topic deserves more attention especially considering the attention that MRSA is gaining. — Scien tizzle 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nominated on February 19, 2008. Received three votes. Removed nomination on June 16, 2008.
- Support
- — Scien tizzle 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- — This could be an interesting topic, and could be quite popular among editors. Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- — I promise I won't do any original research if this article is chosen. CrazyChemGuy ( talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I was surprised there was even an article on this...it's been around since June 2006, and has had {{ expert}} stuck on it since its inception. Perhaps we can make this into a proper article on the sexual side effects of commonly-used drugs? — Scien tizzle 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It needs renaming to something like "medication and sexual behaviour". "Sex" may also refer to male/female differences (surely a topic that could do with an article, although it is badly understudied). Also, it needs renaming to avoid the suggestion that
rock 'n' roll plays a role :-)
JFW |
T@lk
20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Medication and sexual behaviour or Sexual side effects of medication seem reasonable. — Scien tizzle 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support
- — Scien tizzle 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- — This is an important article on an important pharmacology topic. Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- This article is a rambling, out-of-date treatise that can and should give clearer information about--for example--the placebo effect in response treatments as diverse as high quality evidence-based medicine to medical quackery, why placebo controls are necessary for a quality study, and the known and suspected mechanisms involved. — Scien tizzle 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- This has also been proposed at WPMED. If chosen, it might be nice for both projects to coordinate its development. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
RxCOTW}}
- Support
- Comments
- I saved this article from deletion. I don't have a background in biology, so moving beyong the corporate biographies and NYT article have been slow going. I would REALLY appreciate some expert attention on the article, as I'm sure I've goofed some things up. :) It is currently marked as high (he's got an h-index of 63), but feel free to mark it mid. Protonk ( talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I marked the article for deletion, and withdrew the nomination when Protonk came to its rescue. It is a great article that deserves to be seen! Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)