![]() | This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external
peer review in 20 February 2018 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Joseph Cusimano; et al. (29 November 2018).
"Rabeprazole" (PDF). WikiJournal of Medicine. 9 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJM/2022.006.
ISSN
2002-4436.
Wikidata
Q113996572.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rabeprazole 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 |
![]() | 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 Rabeprazole.
|
![]() | Rabeprazole 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: December 14, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Rabeprazole appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 January 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
Mind adding some citations? Nope. Who cares? After all, this is just Wikipedia, a safe house for self-proclaimed experts, right? I don't think so. It might even be said that this article is completely made up by fellow Wikipedians to preach some sprt of "ass effect" propaganda? So I suggest you guys try to add some reference to support your claims, just as I am doing right now. And that "ass effect" thing is very peculiar. What a marvellous piece of slang! Roshu 08:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshu Bangal ( talk • contribs)
Just an FYI: I am reworking major changes to this article. I hope to have them finished by next week. ― Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 10:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I will take up this review, about one of my favourite drugs. Give me some time to familiarise myself with the page, and I'll respond in 2-3 days. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 10:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. 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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nil issues |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
As stated above this article is really easy to read and I think does a great job of communicating its subject matter. Some fairly small changes to increase the readability:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt replies too :). So, only three issues remaining - need some more information on that source, and the cancer bit inserted. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external
peer review in 20 February 2018 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Joseph Cusimano; et al. (29 November 2018).
"Rabeprazole" (PDF). WikiJournal of Medicine. 9 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJM/2022.006.
ISSN
2002-4436.
Wikidata
Q113996572.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rabeprazole 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 |
![]() | 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 Rabeprazole.
|
![]() | Rabeprazole 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: December 14, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Rabeprazole appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 January 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
Mind adding some citations? Nope. Who cares? After all, this is just Wikipedia, a safe house for self-proclaimed experts, right? I don't think so. It might even be said that this article is completely made up by fellow Wikipedians to preach some sprt of "ass effect" propaganda? So I suggest you guys try to add some reference to support your claims, just as I am doing right now. And that "ass effect" thing is very peculiar. What a marvellous piece of slang! Roshu 08:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshu Bangal ( talk • contribs)
Just an FYI: I am reworking major changes to this article. I hope to have them finished by next week. ― Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 10:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I will take up this review, about one of my favourite drugs. Give me some time to familiarise myself with the page, and I'll respond in 2-3 days. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 10:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. 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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nil issues |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
As stated above this article is really easy to read and I think does a great job of communicating its subject matter. Some fairly small changes to increase the readability:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt replies too :). So, only three issues remaining - need some more information on that source, and the cancer bit inserted. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)