This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Nirmatrelvir was copied or moved into Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It's not quite clear the relevance of the final line in the 'Economics' section, parts of which are lifted close-to-verbatim from the FT article it cites.
While somewhat informative, the article also only demonstrates two cases of Paxlovid being given as a gift. Further, the language in the sentence is very similar to that in the FT article, and it seems not much effort has been made to de-editorialize it, so to speak. So, first I would question the relevance of the sentence altogether. The FT article cited doesn't demonstrate the extent of the phenomena well enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Second, at minimum the language should be changed to be more neutral and fitting for an encyclopedia. Since the article is unlocked, I'm going to use my discretion and delete. Evan.morien ( talk) 11:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It might be helpful to include that; the Pfizer
commercial has actors saying "If it's COVID, it's Paxlovid", but that's obviously a primary source so I'm assuming it's a no-go.
Mapsax (
talk) 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Lede contains as of today 2 paragraphs about regulatory history (!) but nothing about the medically important rebound phenomenon, as present in the body of the page. Lede was stuffed with recentism and is cluttered with refs. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Wuerzele ( talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Nirmatrelvir was copied or moved into Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It's not quite clear the relevance of the final line in the 'Economics' section, parts of which are lifted close-to-verbatim from the FT article it cites.
While somewhat informative, the article also only demonstrates two cases of Paxlovid being given as a gift. Further, the language in the sentence is very similar to that in the FT article, and it seems not much effort has been made to de-editorialize it, so to speak. So, first I would question the relevance of the sentence altogether. The FT article cited doesn't demonstrate the extent of the phenomena well enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Second, at minimum the language should be changed to be more neutral and fitting for an encyclopedia. Since the article is unlocked, I'm going to use my discretion and delete. Evan.morien ( talk) 11:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It might be helpful to include that; the Pfizer
commercial has actors saying "If it's COVID, it's Paxlovid", but that's obviously a primary source so I'm assuming it's a no-go.
Mapsax (
talk) 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Lede contains as of today 2 paragraphs about regulatory history (!) but nothing about the medically important rebound phenomenon, as present in the body of the page. Lede was stuffed with recentism and is cluttered with refs. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Wuerzele ( talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)