| Revision as of 19:19, 6 June 2009 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,959 edits restart← Previous edit |
Revision as of 21:23, 6 June 2009 edit undoColin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,936 edits opposeNext edit → |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
|
|
|
|
::: '''Restart''', images and reliability of sources checked. ] (]) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
::: '''Restart''', images and reliability of sources checked. ] (]) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The sourcing is not to a professional standard: too many citations per fact; too many old papers cited; non-relevant-focus papers cited; inconsistency between sources used for the lead and the body; primary research papers cited without good reason; sources of narrow scope used where wider scope required. The article is apparently comprehensive (I'm no expert) but not discriminatory enough in the facts it chooses to present. The prose isn't consistently at FA standard and needs a copy edit (but don't advise one at this stage due to other problems). Two prose examples: there are a number of single-sentence paragraphs and paragraphs beginning with "They". The "Mechanism of action" section is utterly impenetrable to anyone without a pharmacy degree, which isn't acceptable. We must attempt to explain to the general reader how benzos work in the brain and achieve the effects they do. Why do they make you sleepy? Why do they relax muscles? Why do they stop seizures? |
|
|
:Since sources are the foundation upon which an article is built, I don't believe these problems can be fixed quickly. The article shows some evidence of having random fact laid upon fact rather than being planned, executed and refined. The editors need to go through each section, selecting a small set of high quality and focussed sources, and build the text from what those sources say and the weight the sources afford to the facts. As an example of this practice, the seizure section was from thirteen sources to three. I don't suggest this FAC be withdrawn despite my opinion that it can't be rescued in time: I hope we can get reviews by editors with expertise in English and in Medicine. Here are some (but by no means exhaustive) examples of specific problems found: |
|
|
:# The first three sentences of the third paragraph in the lead are cited to three separate papers. But the text is standard stuff that surely could be cited to one review? All three of those are written by Lader and one paper is ten years old. |
|
|
:# The next sentence on long term use cites three sources, two of which are old (20 and 18 years) and are focussed on withdrawal rather than long term use. |
|
|
:# The two sentences on pregnancy in the lead are sourced completely differently to those in the body text. The lead uses sources that are 11 and 15 years old. |
|
|
:# The lead text on the elderly and on drug overdose is cited to different sources than the body text. |
|
|
:#The statement on the general properties of benzodiazepam is cited to a primary research paper on genetically modified mice. |
|
|
:#The statement in "Therapeutic uses" on the various administration routes is sourced to a primary research paper from 1978 on five newborn infants with convulsions. |
|
|
:#Source PMID 7388368 is just the sort of paper we should be citing, except it is 30 years old. Surely there is a more up-to-date version? |
|
|
:#The lead statement on their properties and uses in veterinary practice is sourced to two papers: A review from 1975 on restraint methods in swine (which mentions diazepam for minor procedures) and a Bulgarian-language research paper from 1984 on the effects of powdered diazepam on various animals. Surely a vet textbook could be used, and be more clinically relevant and up-to-date. BTW: there doesn't seem to be any justification for citing non-English sources for this article. |
|
|
:#The statement "Midazolam can also be used along with other drugs in the sedation and capture of wild animals." is sourced to a primary research paper that captured nine aardvarks with ketamine combined with five other test drugs, one of which was midazolam. |
|
|
:#The (vet) statment "They are used before surgery as premedication for muscular relaxation" is sourced to a 20 year old primary research paper on five dogs undergoing anaesthesia. This doesn't tell us about modern vet practice. Indeed, none of the sources in the vet section could be used to document how benzos are currently used in vet practice. |
|
|
:#The statement "Benzodiazepines are also used to treat the acute panic caused by hallucinogen intoxication" is sourced to a 20-year old paper on hallucinogenic intoxication, the abstract of which says "Panic reactions may require treatment with a benzodiazepine or haloperidol." Benzos have well-known anti-anxiety properties. Of course they will be used for severe panic attacks. Is this really notable, or something random a PubMed search found? |
|
|
:#The drug related crime section contains a long paragraph sourced to a single primary research study on Australian police detainees. My gut feeling is that the some of the results here may be particular to Australia during the period studied, and give different results for other countries or different demographics. |
|
|
:#The statement "Eclampsia also responds to them but benzodiazepines are not as effective as intravenous magnesium." is included in the "Other indications" section, but is sourced to a review of diazepam (only, so not "them") vs magnesium. The use of diazepam here is no different to its use in treating any prolonged seizure, so this isn't an "other indications". In fact, much of the "other indications" deals with anxiety situations, and we have an axiety section. And where's the muscle-relaxant indications (only tetanus and stiff person syndrome are mentioned, but "muscle spasm of varied aetiology" are an indication for diazepam)? |
|
|
:#There are far too many cases where three, four and even five citations are strung together, sometimes just to source a single sentence. I'm not sure what the cause of this is, but it isn't necessary for a subject like this. We are dealing with an mature class of drugs for which there is an abundance of high quality literature. Occasionally, a sentence or paragraph may require multiple sources when combining distinct facts, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know whether the editors are trying to strengthen an argument by citing multiple sources but that isn't necessary on WP. The other possibility, and more worrying, is that multiple sources are being combined to produce a statement that may transgress ]. I'm particularly concerned about the various places side-effects/symptoms are mentioned. It is not the job of Wikipedians to pool the side effects (or withdrawal symptoms) of the various benzos and come up with a list of notable ones. |
|
|
:<small>(BTW: Please can you respond below my signature rather than within the above text, to avoid breaking it up. Thanks.)</small> ]°] 21:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the article has finally reached the criteria for featured article. It is indepth and comprehensive, makes extensive use of high quality recent sources, written clearly and consisely. I also believe that the article has the right balance where both professional and layman can derive a great deal of knowledge and understanding from the article subject. Of course there may be some suggestions made before it is promoted to featured article and I am open to constructive criticism or suggestions for improvements but I do believe the article is ready for featured article nomination for review and hopefully promotion.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)