Shortcut WP:PHARM/Assessment

Pharmacology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 4 8 12 FL 1 1 GA 1 18 19 7 45 B 36 235 235 83 6 595 C 52 213 504 420 73 1,262 Start 29 306 1,223 1,618 652 3,828 Stub 69 887 3,966 1 2,226 7,149 List 13 137 98 1 177 426 Category 1 1,084 1,085 Disambig 13 13 File 43 43 Project 23 23 Redirect 12 44 82 773 911 Template 384 384 Other 27 27 Assessed 119 870 3,058 6,274 2,349 3,134 15,804 Unassessed 1 197 198 Total 119 870 3,058 6,275 2,349 3,331 16,002 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 68,957 Ω = 5.35

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Pharmacology! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to pharmacology and drug-related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the ((WikiProject Pharmacology)) project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories class and importance.

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of WikiProject Pharmacology is free to add or change the rating of an article.

Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?

Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning. If you're looking for more specific and detailed help in improving an article, you might try peer review, Good Article candidate review, or Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week.

What if I don't agree with a rating?

You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.

Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Quality assessment

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the ((WikiProject Pharmacology)) project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class pharmacology articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class pharmacology articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class pharmacology articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class pharmacology articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class pharmacology articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class pharmacology articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class pharmacology articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class pharmacology articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class pharmacology articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Please note that FA-Class and GA-Class article assessments are not assigned automatically through this system. Instead, an article must be reviewed first at WP:FAC or WP:GAC. A-Class assessments are not currently used by WikiProject Pharmacology.

Quality scale

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion]	Linezolid (as of September 2009)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available.	List of cutaneous conditions (as of June 2010)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.	(not used by this WikiProject)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Alprazolam (as of March 2009)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as ((cite web)) is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Chloramphenicol (as of July 2010)
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.	Clorazepate (as of July 2010)
Start	An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.	Semagacestat (as of April 2010)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.	Denaverine (as of July 2010)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	ATC code L04 (as of July 2010)

Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the ((WikiProject Pharmacology)) project banner on its talk page:

((WikiProject Pharmacology| ... | importance=??? | ...))

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles
• High - adds articles to Category:High-importance pharmacology articles
• Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance pharmacology articles
• Unknown/Unassessed - Any article not rated for importance is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance pharmacology articles.

Importance scale

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Please note that, if you would like an article assessed for FA or GA status, that is must be nominated at WP:FAC or WP:GAC, respectively.

Requested assessments

• I added a bit to Totomycin making it clear that no human clinical trials seem to have been done yet. It might be useful to assess the importance of this article even though there doesn't seem to be much to say about totomycin yet. Totomycin seems to have been attracting a bit of interest from Lyme disease patients due to some new findings in mice. And some people in the Lyme disease community do seem to have a tendency to obtain and take drugs based on garbled hearsay without a clear understanding of what they are. So the Totomycin article might be useful in case anyone thinking of trying to get hold of totomycin for their own use (which might not be wise at the moment!) looks at it for information. Wombat140 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to ask if someone could assess the stub article Piperacillin, where I've added more content and sources into. Much appreciated! Yilard (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi! I've been adding to this stub Benadryl and believe its quality has improved so I would like to request an assessment. Thank you.Redvelvetcake5 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please assess carbon monoxide-releasing molecules. thx. Ketoacids (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I made huge changes to both Acepromazine and Sulfadimethoxine. Maybe they're not start-class anymore? —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have recently removed the Stub classification from Psychiatric pharmacy. Let me know what you think! Biochemistry&Love (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi! I'd like to get a peer review and assessment of Endogenous gas. Roman Bekker (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Complete, per Wikipedia:Peer review/Gaseous signaling molecules/archive1. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi - I'd appreciate it if someone could assess N-methylphenethylamine. Thanks! Seppi333 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Assessed. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE NEED HELP BUILDING THE GW Pharmaceuticals AND THE Hortapharm B.V. PAGE, THEY ARE THE BIGGEST LEGAL CANNABIS GROWERS IN THE WORLD AND HAVE TEAMED UP WITH BAYER, MONSANTO AND THE DEA.Vjiced (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • I'm requesting re-assesment of these two articles. Vjiced classified them both as High importance to four different Wikiprojects. I strongly doubt that they're actually high importance to any of them given the amount of editor attention they've received. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 02:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My group created the Discovery and development of thalidomide and its analogs page. We would like assessment and comments about the page. The page was created as a part of our course in Medicinal Chemistry in the University of Iceland. We are 3 pharmaceutical students on our 5th and final year of study, hoping that this page will expand in the coming years. HlynurT (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I updated the Nisoxetine page, please let me know what you think. It's primarily a research drug, so not much clinical data. - Julia User:Juliagall
  • Rated C. Will nominate it for DYK and probably do a bit more copyedit over the next few days. Nice work. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest the article Nitrazepam be re-written by someone without such a selective dislike of nitrazepam. It reads like an amateur anti-benzo rant, and its highly selective references to pubmed articles is likely to mislead. I would downrate it to 'C', not 'B', as its overall effect is to terrify people taking this drug, not inform them. --Posted by 120.148.2.96 (talk · contribs).

Cross-posted at WT:PHARM#Nitrazepam. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites the majority of the biased statements to a selection of outdated primary research as well as case reports. Should be pruned to recent review articles and teaching texts according to WP:MEDRS. Remove first everything cited to case reports and primary research, in particular medical claims based on in vitro results with rat cells, cancer cells etc. Virtually everything has once been observed, investigated and contradicted in primary research. Virtually everything has been once reported in a case report of some patient. 70.137.146.59 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]