This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
azithromycin — what about it? it's a macrolide.
Is the preferred form with a capital or with a lower case letter? 30S or 50s Thanks. Mseliw 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
is this vandalism, or am I missing something? Juhan RSA ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
These are not 'random images', they are images of the different types of aminoglycosides. Other antibiotic articles have images of the compound in question. Amdurbin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
Ref. #9 (Pharmamotion by Flavio Guzman) leads to a blog in Spanish with no information on aminoglycoside mode of action. It should be substituted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fassbinder69 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to have all the aminoglycosides drawn the same way, currently various types of representation are used, and different orientations are shown, making comparisons difficult. I'm new here so I don't want to step on any toes, but I do have the ability to make a standard set of aminoglycoside images, if it's appropriate. I suppose I'll look into figuring out how the whole wikimedia business goes and figure out how to go through the proper channels. Scaldwell17 ( talk) 07:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
In re-ordering the images in the gallery according to sub-class, the following images—which do not appear in the cited Mingeot-Leclercq et al. review—were pulled temporarily, until a citation merging them with the Mingeot-Leclercq list can be found. (I.e., that list, because dated, may not contain all relevant examples, but until a newer/better citation is identified, we have no source assigning these as aminoglycosides, nor can we assign subclass (without doing "original research").
File:Framycetin.png| Framycetin File:Bekanamycin.png| Bekanamycin File:Hygromycin b.svg| Hygromycin B File:Verdamicin.svg| Verdamicin File:Astromicin.png| Astromicin File:Spectinomycin.svg| Spectinomycin
Note, spectinomycin is arguably a distinct structural class. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 14:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
…to other content on page, and to essentially all other authoritative secondary research source information on this class of antibiotics. That there can be mechanisms other than inhibition of protein synthesis at play when specific aminoglycosides are administered is both plausible, and acknowledged in the article. To take one alternative mechanism, which via a quote, appears to be an hypothesis, and to promote it as a general truth about the class, contrary to other parts of the article, and contrary to all other references appearing in the article (and all standard references to the subject) is to either be promoting a personal, non-preponderant view or to be presenting original research. To do the latter without citation, when it flies in the face of the preponderance of the review literature, and to do so with authority—such an inaccurate and unsourced text (second paragraph) cannot be allowed to remain longer.
The first paragraph could yet appear with its hypothesis, though the citation is singular, is dated (the 18-year old text is superseded, at least, by the 2005 5th edition of the same, see http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/4/577.1.full), as a citation is incomplete (it is a multi-author work, with Lorian as editor, so author is lacking), is a bit strange as source for this content (it is a laboratory methods manual, not a recent review of AG mechanisms), and it is very hard to come by (expensive text, no digital version or glimpse possible). If the content of this paragraph is returned in some fashion, its emphasis must reflect the broad literature's view of AG mechanism, and this particular idea must be represented as it appears in the source—as an hypothesis ("may be sufficient"). At the same time, more recent, appropriate sources should be sought to substantiate the idea, or the sources referenced in the original book chapter should be added.
Below are the two paragraphs that were redacted. Further citations and edits should be added by the original editor, so a discussion can take place regarding where this material might belong in the article. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
References
These non-mechanistic paragraphs are largely unreferenced, and by parsing them according to subject, venues are created that should allow subject matter experts to address the areas that they know best. Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 19:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Though not perfect, I have completed today's redraft of the mechanism section. As noted above, non-mechanistic text was separated out into separate subsections, and these remain problematic—they lack citations, have material redundant with other parts of the article (compare Indications with Clinical), and are generally lower in quality of material. (The PK and PD sub-section is particularly unready for encyclopedia readers.) Note that while the three bullet point structure of the earlier version is gone, the ideas have been integrated. All three points still appear, though with different (unequal weights) as befits presentation of this mechanistic topic by the best sources. Note, in particular, that the "movement of the peptidyl-tRNA from the A- to the P-site" point still appears, despite it having no support in a reliable citation.
The only real redaction—apart from the two paragraphs noted, and appearing above—is the citation:
which has appeared with a "self-published" query for three years. This is a personal set of web pages (with all due respect to Dr Guzmán), and so is not an appropriate repeat source for this article's topic. (See addition editor's questioning of this source, above.)
So, this section is now ready for some further "heavy hitting" by some other subject matter experts. Please, please, please expert editors—replace the sections of unreliable, unsourced text, with appropriate text worthy of a good article in a good online encyclopedia. Cheers. LeProf Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
…so that all appearing structures have same chair-boat representation, so that readers do not have to have significant organic chemical expertise to view and compare drawings. (The chair-boat appears to have been settled upon earlier as the standard in this article; the majority of readily available images of aminoglycosides are in chair-boat, rather than line-angle representations, and so this makes sense.)
This image-removal-to-Talk is a stop-gap measure, until a better overall composite image for the various amino glycosides can be designed. (There is mention of such in a Talk section entitled Image Gallery above, that gives a citation to a good amino glycoside figure, and this citation is re-appended here, after the three structures that are being temporarily removed.)
Note, I searched the German and English wikipedia articles for better images of all of these amino glycosides, and those appearing are the best, most consistent images that could be identified.
Temporarily removed images:
Good image structure example, with good use of space and good structure conventions:
173.15.74.18 ( talk) 16:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aminoglycoside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
azithromycin — what about it? it's a macrolide.
Is the preferred form with a capital or with a lower case letter? 30S or 50s Thanks. Mseliw 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
is this vandalism, or am I missing something? Juhan RSA ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
These are not 'random images', they are images of the different types of aminoglycosides. Other antibiotic articles have images of the compound in question. Amdurbin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
Ref. #9 (Pharmamotion by Flavio Guzman) leads to a blog in Spanish with no information on aminoglycoside mode of action. It should be substituted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fassbinder69 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to have all the aminoglycosides drawn the same way, currently various types of representation are used, and different orientations are shown, making comparisons difficult. I'm new here so I don't want to step on any toes, but I do have the ability to make a standard set of aminoglycoside images, if it's appropriate. I suppose I'll look into figuring out how the whole wikimedia business goes and figure out how to go through the proper channels. Scaldwell17 ( talk) 07:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
In re-ordering the images in the gallery according to sub-class, the following images—which do not appear in the cited Mingeot-Leclercq et al. review—were pulled temporarily, until a citation merging them with the Mingeot-Leclercq list can be found. (I.e., that list, because dated, may not contain all relevant examples, but until a newer/better citation is identified, we have no source assigning these as aminoglycosides, nor can we assign subclass (without doing "original research").
File:Framycetin.png| Framycetin File:Bekanamycin.png| Bekanamycin File:Hygromycin b.svg| Hygromycin B File:Verdamicin.svg| Verdamicin File:Astromicin.png| Astromicin File:Spectinomycin.svg| Spectinomycin
Note, spectinomycin is arguably a distinct structural class. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 14:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
…to other content on page, and to essentially all other authoritative secondary research source information on this class of antibiotics. That there can be mechanisms other than inhibition of protein synthesis at play when specific aminoglycosides are administered is both plausible, and acknowledged in the article. To take one alternative mechanism, which via a quote, appears to be an hypothesis, and to promote it as a general truth about the class, contrary to other parts of the article, and contrary to all other references appearing in the article (and all standard references to the subject) is to either be promoting a personal, non-preponderant view or to be presenting original research. To do the latter without citation, when it flies in the face of the preponderance of the review literature, and to do so with authority—such an inaccurate and unsourced text (second paragraph) cannot be allowed to remain longer.
The first paragraph could yet appear with its hypothesis, though the citation is singular, is dated (the 18-year old text is superseded, at least, by the 2005 5th edition of the same, see http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/4/577.1.full), as a citation is incomplete (it is a multi-author work, with Lorian as editor, so author is lacking), is a bit strange as source for this content (it is a laboratory methods manual, not a recent review of AG mechanisms), and it is very hard to come by (expensive text, no digital version or glimpse possible). If the content of this paragraph is returned in some fashion, its emphasis must reflect the broad literature's view of AG mechanism, and this particular idea must be represented as it appears in the source—as an hypothesis ("may be sufficient"). At the same time, more recent, appropriate sources should be sought to substantiate the idea, or the sources referenced in the original book chapter should be added.
Below are the two paragraphs that were redacted. Further citations and edits should be added by the original editor, so a discussion can take place regarding where this material might belong in the article. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
References
These non-mechanistic paragraphs are largely unreferenced, and by parsing them according to subject, venues are created that should allow subject matter experts to address the areas that they know best. Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 19:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Though not perfect, I have completed today's redraft of the mechanism section. As noted above, non-mechanistic text was separated out into separate subsections, and these remain problematic—they lack citations, have material redundant with other parts of the article (compare Indications with Clinical), and are generally lower in quality of material. (The PK and PD sub-section is particularly unready for encyclopedia readers.) Note that while the three bullet point structure of the earlier version is gone, the ideas have been integrated. All three points still appear, though with different (unequal weights) as befits presentation of this mechanistic topic by the best sources. Note, in particular, that the "movement of the peptidyl-tRNA from the A- to the P-site" point still appears, despite it having no support in a reliable citation.
The only real redaction—apart from the two paragraphs noted, and appearing above—is the citation:
which has appeared with a "self-published" query for three years. This is a personal set of web pages (with all due respect to Dr Guzmán), and so is not an appropriate repeat source for this article's topic. (See addition editor's questioning of this source, above.)
So, this section is now ready for some further "heavy hitting" by some other subject matter experts. Please, please, please expert editors—replace the sections of unreliable, unsourced text, with appropriate text worthy of a good article in a good online encyclopedia. Cheers. LeProf Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
…so that all appearing structures have same chair-boat representation, so that readers do not have to have significant organic chemical expertise to view and compare drawings. (The chair-boat appears to have been settled upon earlier as the standard in this article; the majority of readily available images of aminoglycosides are in chair-boat, rather than line-angle representations, and so this makes sense.)
This image-removal-to-Talk is a stop-gap measure, until a better overall composite image for the various amino glycosides can be designed. (There is mention of such in a Talk section entitled Image Gallery above, that gives a citation to a good amino glycoside figure, and this citation is re-appended here, after the three structures that are being temporarily removed.)
Note, I searched the German and English wikipedia articles for better images of all of these amino glycosides, and those appearing are the best, most consistent images that could be identified.
Temporarily removed images:
Good image structure example, with good use of space and good structure conventions:
173.15.74.18 ( talk) 16:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aminoglycoside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)