![]() | Norepinephrine has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 7, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norepinephrine 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:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-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 Norepinephrine.
|
The section above appears to be reaching a consensus to split the article in two, one relating to the drug, the other to the hormone/neurotransmitter. However there isn't yet a consensus on how to arrange the split. There are basically three possibilities: (1) No default -- norepinephrine becomes a disambig page, referring to the other two; (2) default=drug --- norepinephrine is about the drug, norepinephrine (hormone and neurotransmitter) is linked from the top of it; (3) default=neurotransmitter -- norepinephrine is about the neurotransmitter and hormone, norepinephrine (drug) is linked from the top of it. Which do you favor? Looie496 ( talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!
First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.
I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.
This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.
Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.
Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:
I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.
Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓ Good to go
This is still ongoing.
✓ Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.
✓Good to go
✓ Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.
The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.
✓ Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)
✓ Good to go.
✓The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.
✓The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.
I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief
Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed ref 1 doesn't have the info it's being used to cite (unless it's in one of the links?). Could a more precise ref be added? Also, isn't the "upon the kidneys" translation for adrenaline and epinepherine (i.e. epi- = upon, neph- = kidney)? What does the nor- add? delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I have had many family issues and I profusely apologize in the delay of this review. I will jump in again. I'll be finishing the review up with my other account. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) otherwise known as Bfpage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosine Minimobiler ( talk) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Iztwoz: the talk page post was made before the edit, check time. now, the articles are bloated. call others of wiki project medicine. Minimobiler ( talk) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Iztwoz: bring the others. Minimobiler ( talk) 08:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Nor adrenaline actually decreases heart rate. reference from Principles of general pharmacology by KD Tripathi. Zaidanzargar ( talk) 07:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Norepinephrine has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 7, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norepinephrine 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:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-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 Norepinephrine.
|
The section above appears to be reaching a consensus to split the article in two, one relating to the drug, the other to the hormone/neurotransmitter. However there isn't yet a consensus on how to arrange the split. There are basically three possibilities: (1) No default -- norepinephrine becomes a disambig page, referring to the other two; (2) default=drug --- norepinephrine is about the drug, norepinephrine (hormone and neurotransmitter) is linked from the top of it; (3) default=neurotransmitter -- norepinephrine is about the neurotransmitter and hormone, norepinephrine (drug) is linked from the top of it. Which do you favor? Looie496 ( talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!
First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.
I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.
This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.
Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.
Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:
I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.
Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓ Good to go
This is still ongoing.
✓ Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go
This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.
✓Good to go
✓ Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.
The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.
✓ Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)
✓ Good to go.
✓The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.
✓The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.
I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief
Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed ref 1 doesn't have the info it's being used to cite (unless it's in one of the links?). Could a more precise ref be added? Also, isn't the "upon the kidneys" translation for adrenaline and epinepherine (i.e. epi- = upon, neph- = kidney)? What does the nor- add? delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I have had many family issues and I profusely apologize in the delay of this review. I will jump in again. I'll be finishing the review up with my other account. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) otherwise known as Bfpage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosine Minimobiler ( talk) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Iztwoz: the talk page post was made before the edit, check time. now, the articles are bloated. call others of wiki project medicine. Minimobiler ( talk) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Iztwoz: bring the others. Minimobiler ( talk) 08:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Nor adrenaline actually decreases heart rate. reference from Principles of general pharmacology by KD Tripathi. Zaidanzargar ( talk) 07:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)