Wikipedia:Peer review/Drug Discovery and Development: Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Agonists/archive1

Drug Discovery and Development: Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Agonists

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are a group of five pharmacy students who are working on this page as a project for a class called drug design. We would be glad to hear what other people think. We are from Iceland so English is not our first language.

Thanks, Hopur52009 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article and a good start, but there is room to make it better. So here are some suggestions for improvement. By the way, your English is much better than my Icelandic.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the whole Structure-activity relationships section does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• WP:LEAD also suggests putting either an image or infobox in the top right corner of the lead - since this has many images, could one of them be moved up? Perhaps File:Acetylcholine nicotinic receptor binding.svg?
• WP:HEAD says that the article's section headers should not repeat the article title, and subheaders should not repeat the header above them (if at all possible). The best example of this is the "Structure-activity relationships" header, each of the three subheaders repeats this and should not (so the first subheader could just be "Muscle nAChR agonists"
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow
• Watch apparent contradictions and errors in the article - for example the lead says five drugs, but the article table in the Products of nicotinic agonist section lists six. More improtantly, this is just wrong It was first isolated in 1928 from the tobacco plant by German chemists, Posselt and Reimann.[6] - it was 1828 (100 years earlier) as the ref cited shows.
• Try to make captions more explanatory, so "Chemical structure of ABT-418" could be "Chemical structure of ABT-418, one of the first nAChR agonists" - many people look at the images first before reading the article
• Watch out for words like current as they can became outdated quickly - instead use things like "As of 2009" or "Since year"
• Refs are generally good - the article seems to be cited pretty much everywhere I would expect. However, the formatting of the refs needs to be improved - refs 34 to 38 are just URLs, for example. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Why is Epibatidine listed in the table when it is not a drug (or at least not used as one as of 2009)?
• There are lots of little grammar and other language errors that need to be cleaned up. WP:PR/V is one place to ask for copyediting help.
• The See also section is usually for links that have not already appeared in the article
• Article images need alt text for visually impaired readers per WP:ALT
• My guess is that this title was part of the class assignment - I doubt whether many people would type this in / look for it under this name. Could the title be simplified? Or have you made redirects from other likely titles to this article?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)