Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata ( talk · contribs) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi! Comments in a day or two ... Sasata ( talk) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I noticed that the peer review for this is still open; to my understanding there can't be both a good article review and peer review for an article at the same time, so you should close one or the other. Sasata ( talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Seppi333 was trying to elicit some feedback on the article at the time. I've closed the PR so the GAN can continue. LT910001 ( talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for doing that LT910001!

Sasata, I rewrote the lead since it didn't really conform to WP:LEAD, but I didn't cite claims that were already cited in the article - should I go ahead and re-cite them in the lead anyway, or leave it as is? I'm not sure what the standards/policy on that are. Seppi333 ( talk) 00:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply

If they're already cited in the article, they don't need to be cited in the lead. Some like to add a citation to statements that they think might be particularly contentious, but even then it isn't strictly necessary. Sasata ( talk) 15:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments. First batch of comments from a fairly quick read-through, mostly prose tweaks and WP:MOS nitpicks. I'll go through again paying more attention to content and checking sources. (p.s. just noticed that you've made several changes in the past few days, and I was reading from a few-days old copy of the article, so please ignore or cross out any suggestions that are no longer applicable). Sasata ( talk) 15:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Lead

• bold "speed" in the lead as an alternate name  Done
• link neurotoxin, libido, euphoria  Done
• suggest replacing jargon "suprapharmacological" with layman's term  Done

Uses

• suggested links: narcolepsy, psychosis, dopamine system, placebo, comorbid, working memory, anti-doping regulations, reaction time, reuptake inhibition, effluxion  Done

Psychological effects

• spell out FDA on 1st use (abbreviate later instances)  Done

Contraindications

• link hypertension, hypersensitivity, blood pressure, US pregnancy category C,  Done
• "anatomically narrow angles" not sure what this means  Fixed by deleting it (I'm not sure either)

Side effects

• link side effects, antipsychotic  Done
• "stimulant psychosis which may present" which->that  Fixed
• "methamphetamine induced psychosis" needs to be hyphenated  Fixed
• "5-15%" number ranges need an endash (check for later instances in article, e.g. in subsection pharmacokinetics)  Fixed

Interactions

• bulleted lists are generally frowned upon, so this section should be converted to prose  Fixed both
• ditto for legal status section  Done
• link elimination half-life, catecholamine, hypertensive agent, GI tract (and spell out on its use)  Done

Pharmacology

• the comparison chart of amphetamine derivatives is unreadable at its current size  Fixed - removed it in a prior edit
• "Physically, it is a mobile, colorless, and volatile liquid" at room temperature? what is the MP and BP?  Done - Can't seem to find MP though
• link volatile, amine, chiral ligand, stereoselective synthesis, decongestant, reduced, transporter, astrocyte, neuropeptide, bouton, excitatory  Done
• "amphetamine was found as excellent chiral ligand" fix grammar  Fixed
• check all figure captions: those that are not complete sentences should not end in a period (per MOS:CAPTION)  Fixed
• 1,1'-Bi-2-naphthol, (3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine) initial capitals not needed  Fixed
• "intermediate which is reduced" which->that  Done
• spell out GPCR on first usage (abbreviate subsequent)  Done
• "in 2001,[43] that is important" that->which  Done
• spell out DOPAC  Done
• "Amphetamine is eliminated renally with a fraction of the drug being excreted unchanged (.30-.40%) at normal urinary ph" properly capitalize pH;  Fixed
• the info box says "significant portion unaltered"; is .3-.4% significant?  Fixed by listing the pH-dependent range.
• for FA I'd expect to see a figure showing the chemical structures of metabolic intermediates in the detox pathways  Done - I think Boghog ( talk · contribs) is making a better one to replace it with though
• "so chromatographic methods specific for amphetamine are employed to prevent false positive results." more details please; same for "Chiral-separation techniques may be employed to help distinguish the source of the drug"  Done
• link & spell out OTC  Done

History

• link schedule II controlled substance  Done
• "amphetamine still found both licit and illicit use" fix grammar  Fixed
• duplicate links needs to be trimmed throughout article; Ucucha's duplink tool can help with this  Done - see below

I tried to keep article wikilinks at a maximum of 3 links per page, (lead+body) unless I missed some. I tended to keep a duplicate WL if it was in a section relevant to the link topic, like dopamine and DAT links in the dopamine section, or if it was in a list.

 Regards, 
Seppi333 (
talk) 16:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) and Edited at 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC) and Edited a 2nd time at 00:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC).
reply

I finished the list - are there any items above that I didn't address to your satisfaction? Similarly, do you have any other suggestions for improving it for FA? I really appreciate the high standard you've set so far to help with the FA process - I know checking for minute details can be a pain in the ass. Seppi333 ( talk) 05:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Looking good! Thanks for making the changes. I will review your changes, read the article more closely, and see what I come up with in a lit search, but this will take a couple of days to prepare. Sasata ( talk) 04:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the delays, real life interrupts. Haven't forgotten about this. Sasata ( talk) 20:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

No worries - take your time. Seppi333 ( talk) 20:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• some comments on the lead:
• the lead needs to be reworked so that a "bright grade 12 student" could understand it without having to click away on all of the bluelinked terms. Some specific suggestions that might help (but don't be limited by my suggestions!):

• "(USAN, contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine or α-methylphenethylamine)" First, there shouldn't be undefined abbreviations (see also ADHD later), but more importantly, is this bit of info so essential that it needs to be placed in the lead sentence? How about integrating it with note 1? CHANGED  Partly done - Merged with note 1 – another editor insisted on maintaining INN/BAN references, so I made it consistent with other abbreviation usage instead. Also fixed ADHD abbreviation. Edited: Seppi333 ( talk) 02:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• link decongestant, depression, obesity, precursor, trafficking, inhaler, prodrug  Done
• obesity and depression treatment are mentioned in the lead but not in the article?  Fixed
• Amphetamine is also used as a performance and cognitive enhancer due to its ergogenic and nootropic effects. Is the underlined part strictly necessary for the lead? Technical terms can be introduced later ...  Fixed by removing it (in a previous edit).
• "Moreover, due to its activity"  Fixed
• "Moreover, due to its activity in the mesolimbic and mesocortical dopamine pathways" can the mesolimbic/mesocortical jargon words be cut?  Fixed Reworded and used a wikilink to mesolimbic with simpler language, since that's the more relevant pathway. "Due to its activity in the dopamine reward pathway, amphetamine is known to possess a potential for substance dependence (i.e. addiction)."
• "this may also occur as a treatment emergent side effect during long-term use at therapeutic doses." can this be trimmed? Done in the lead and the body
• "Amphetamine is also the parent compound"  Fixed
• link ecstasy, volatility  Done

• perhaps I missed this somewhere is the article. How is the drug ingested?

Nutshell Its routes of administration are mentioned in the drugbox, but I didn't cover it in the article itself, since all the salts of amphetamine redirect to this article. The most common route is oral because licit and illicit amphetamine is typically the sulfate or aspartate salt; consequently, the drugbox info for routes of administration is based upon the salts.

• From the lead: "Therefore, amphetamine is illegally synthesized by clandestine chemists, trafficked, and sold." this doesn't seem to be discussed in the article. I'd also be interested in knowing what synthetic route underground labs usually use to make the drug (I know this is partly covered in the daughter article on History and culture, but that seems to focus more on methampethamine)

NutshellIt's mentioned in the third synthesis method, but that's probably easy to miss since it was covered last (quote below). I can move it up to the top if you think it's worth covering first.

"A third method, commonly used in the illicit manufacture of amphetamine, employs a non-metal reduction known as the "Leuckart" reaction."

Edit/add - From what I remember from the source, amph (and MDMA) labs are pretty similar to meth labs, so I figured I'd just use the meth material in the history/culture article to cover that. I really need to edit that page to say that though. It's been over a month since the split/merge took place and I haven't gotten around to it. Seppi333 ( talk) 18:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Could I convince you to split up the citations to the Adderall XR medication guide to short-cites with specific page numbers? It will make it far easier for me (and others) to verify the information. Done
• ensure the page ranges are consistently formatted; currently there's a mixture of forms: "357–87" vs. "3261–3262"  Done with consistent ndash format as well
• consider using full names for journals instead of abbreviations; we're not lacking space, and the average reader (our target audience) is unlikely to know, for example, "J. Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl." If you prefer the abbreviated version, make sure it's applied consistently throughout, and make sure fullstops are used consistently too.  Done by Boghog

 Done with WP:V check and citation formatting. Seppi333 ( talk) 06:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure thing. I'll go through the FDA cite and split it before the end of the day - I think I linked it about 50 times. :P

Is there any automated script/tool I can use to consistently format citations, or would I need to manually format/expand them? I've only used the built in cite template GUI tool to cite/expand my refs, but I'd say somewhere between 25-45% of the unique refs on this page weren't added by me. Seppi333 ( talk) 19:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

This is very handy for refs with a Pubmed#, but you'll still have to ultimately go through each one-by-one with a fine-tooth comb before FAC (it doesn't, for example, properly format italics or super/subscripts that may appear in the article title). Sasata ( talk) 19:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, alright - thanks for the tool. I'll do the citation formatting before tomorrow night, since I imagine it'll take a while. Did you want me to make any changes to the content you had questions about from above? (i.e. where I responded with a Nutshell) Seppi333 ( talk) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll need to dig into the sources more before I commit to any opinions about reorganizing or adding material. Back later, Sasata ( talk) 20:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Sasata & Zad68 - I'm going to reformat a lot of the citations for style consistency tonight, then work from the top down, section by section, to verify text-citation integrity and possibly re-source, delete text, or add sources to medical content that's not currently supported by a MEDRS-quality source for whatever reason. I'll try to cite non-medical claims with the MEDRS-standard as well, with exception for the 5-year limit. After doing that to a section, I'll then make citation consistency fixes. I'm mentioning this just to reduce the potential workload for all three of us; in particular, I'd suggest waiting until I work through a section before checking it, since I've noticed some sections need a lot of minor ref alterations/additions. Seppi333 ( talk) 01:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Will it matter at FA review if the article size is >100kb due to the size of the reflist+(~20kb worth of )quotes? ( WP:SIZESPLIT WP:ARTICLESIZE) Seppi333 ( talk) 02:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think they count the size of the reflist in the prose size. According to my prose size counter, this article is: 29 kB (4114 words) "readable prose size". If you want that prose size counter, put the following in your vector.js: importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js');. I don't like all the big quotes in the refs, and I would take them out. Zad 68 02:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that javascript link Zad! I'll go through and remove the quotes to free sources for brevity. Seppi333 ( talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

(Outdent) I may not be done with ref-formatting and checking until as late as Saturday. Sorry it's taking so long – it's going slowly because there's a handful of single sentences cited by book sources to which I don't readily have access. I also didn't initially intend to thoroughly check verifiability, but I've already found a handful of statements that are, at best, indirectly implied by sources. I'm still working to resource some of those. In the meantime, I'm hosting the sources that are WP:PAYWALLED on my google file-locker page. A handful of non-paywalled sources can also be found here for convenience. With the exception of "NP" being appended to the non-paywalled file names, all the file names reflect the ref name in the article as of now. I own some of the sources as a hard-copy textbook, so I can just take a picture and upload it if you want to check those for WP:V (namely, "Malenka_2009" and "Malenka_2009_02"). Seppi333 ( talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Edit note: Sasata & Zad68, let me know once you've downloaded (or if you don't wish to download) the paywalled sources – I'm not normally at liberty to publicly host them like this. Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 01:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Just a note about citation formatting. Per Sasata's suggestion, I have used the citation filling tool to generate/reformat nearly all the journal citations in the article. I believe that the names of the Journals are consistently formatted (e.g., I have manually added periods after abbreviations of all journal names which PubMed does not do). Boghog ( talk) 06:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Notes from Zad68

Seppi333 ping'd me on my User Talk page, asking for my input. Usually the first thing I do with a GA review is go over the sourcing, which I always feel is the most important thing. After a quick glance, overall I see many sources that look appropriate but some that look like they might not be. I plan on providing notes on the sourcing over the next few days (probably early next week). The GA reviewer is of course welcome to proceed without my input, but just thought I'd mention my plans. If the GA concludes before my sourcing notes are ready I'll just put them on the Talk page. Zad 68 20:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

All extra input is welcomed! Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 20:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Status of Citation Editing

 Note: I edited the lead sentence on addiction again.
 Note: I'm going to check/format journal titles once I'm done with everything else, in part because I think another user might be working on that. Consequently, the status for formatting in the tab below doesn't reflect whether or not I've checked/fixed that parameter.
 Note: I may update a citation (specifically, add or expand the quote) if I encounter it while editing a section later on.
 Note: I'm not adding quotes to journal articles or websites that cite a very large amount of text (like the "Miller" or 5 page "FDA Effects" refs)

I don't own or have access through my university to the following references:

Seppi333 ( talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Citation formatting nitpicks. From the first column (refs 1–46). More later. Sasata ( talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• refs #1, 2, 7: add updated date; is there a publisher?
• ref #8: add last updated date; what is "MIMS" (link?)
• article title in ref #9: "and present--a pharmacological" not double hyphen, should be en- or em-dash (check source)
• ref #13 book title should be title case; who are the book editors?
• ref #16: perhaps work should be "United Nations Treaty Collections", publisher=United Nations? (not sure)
• ref #17: add revision date
• ref #18: add year
• ref #22: what kind of publication is this?  Done up to this point at 03:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• refs #24, 25: indicate who the editors are. Also, the page range is too wide for readers to be able to easily verify info from this source; will probably have to break this up into more specific page numbers for FAC - I converted the Westfall pages to a section references (5 pages in online version) because the web version doesn't indicate page numbers relative to the book. I cut the Cochrane ref down to a 6 page range and added the quoted material to that parameter as well.
• ref #28: add revision date
• ref #29: journal title missing fullstops
• ref #31: "dl" needs italics
• ref #32: book title in title case
• refs #33, 34, 35: author format different; indicate editor; no abbreviated journal title?
• ref #36: original publication date?
• ref #38: date format different than the rest; article title in title case (different than others) - removed it since the other 2 refs fully cited the sentence
• ref #39: date, authors, publisher?
• refs #42, 45: publication date?

 Done with this set, assuming I didn't unwittingly skip over something. Did this rather late at night. Seppi333 ( talk) 08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Question: Should I be adding "associate editors" to the "editor" parameter? There's around 5-15 for some of the book sources. Example with 7 associate editors Seppi333 ( talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's necessary (I doubt that information will help the reader evaluate source quality). Sasata ( talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• ref #54: article title in title case  Done - I think you meant 56 in the link you gave me though (that's what I edited)
• ref #57: indicate editors; isbn formatting different than others  Done Converted all ISBN's to 13 digits with no spaces
• ref #58: add authors, last updated date, publisher (Unbound Meicine?)  Done
• ref #61: indicate editor  Done
• ref #65: missing fullstops in journal abbreviation  Done
• ref #69: indicate editor  Done
• ref #71: isbn #? Done Converted all ISBN's to 13 digits with no spaces
• ref #76: no journal abbreviation?  Done
• refs #77, 88, 100, 101, 102: "Heading" is an odd, uninformative title; for example, for #100 I'd use "title=p-Hydroxyamphetamine – Compound Summary" Done
• ref #78: don't need journal publisher  Note: I didn't see a cite journal publisher parameter in this or an adjacent ref.
• ref #85: do you read Japanese? I'm curious as to what part of the sentence this source supports?  Note: Nope, don't know the language. I just quoted the abstract for a topical summary of the extraneuronal monoamine transporter which it refs being discovered in a previous paper. It supports "SLC22A3 is an extraneuronal monoamine transporter that is present in astrocytes." I cross referenced it with SLC22A3 while doing that part.
• ref #91: page range format different  Done
• ref #106: could add "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" to publisher field  Done
• ref #107: replace +/- with ±. and "alpha" with "α"; italicize (R) and (S)  Done throughout article as well, where applicable
• refs 109, 100: book title should be title case; tweak isbn hyphenation  Done Converted all ISBN's to 13 digits with no spaces
• ref #112: journal in caps  Done (and abbreviated it)
• ref #114: add last updated date  Done
• ref #120: date? Tne -> The  Done
• ref #121: should indicate that it is the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare  Done
• refs #125, 126: no journal abbreviation?  Done

Recently added sources

Figured I'd run the formatting of these by you before the new refs are added (a few more are possible, still revising the section in my sandbox): ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} I tried to fix the types of mistakes I've made that you pointed out in the first set of edits.
I should have your second set of ref critiques fixed by (probably before) saturday. Seppi333 ( talk) 04:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• refs #1 and #3 should indicate the book editor(s), and there's an extra space after the colon in the title. Sasata ( talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)  Done in the article and in Talk:Amphetamine/sandbox reply

New comments

• "however, he also noted that the population in the study had a remarkably high incidence of comorbid disorders associated with ADHD.[33] Consequently, the author asserted that other long-term trials of stimulants in ADHD with less comorbidity would be expected to show greater functional improvements and fewer side effects." I'm not sure I'm parsing this correctly. Millichap found that the experimental group in the multicenter study displayed a high rate of comorbid disorders ... so a different study using a different stimulant (not amphetamine) would be expected to produce better results? Or is he saying a different study with a different experimental group would produce better results?  Fixed I'm going to omit that clause since I realized his argument is a bit illogical - I think he meant the latter case you mentioned. It's a bit nonsequitur to say the absence of comorbid disorders necessarily implies improved drug efficacy - it just implies that there's less comorbid impairment. Seppi333 ( talk) 00:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I tweaked the wording to reduce confusion - "Consequently, the author asserted that other long-term amphetamine trials in ADHD with less comorbidity could result in even greater functional improvements." After reconsidering, I realized he was trying to say less comorbid impairment would result in improved study results, not improved drug efficacy. Let me know if you think the new sentence needs further revision for clarity. Seppi333 ( talk) 00:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• "At moderate therapeutic doses, amphetamine has been shown to increase ... stamina ... and endurance..." what's the difference between these? (Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between the two) Nutshell An oversimplified way of explaining the difference between the two is that stamina is exercise under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, while endurance is purely aerobic conditions. A more technical explanation (from what I remember reading back when I was running marathons), stamina refers to aerobic exercise at or sufficiently close to lactate threshold, whereas endurance is exercising at a level beneath that for prolonged periods, where limitations arise from musculoskeletal trauma. In the context of running, the difference between the two is races involving stamina involve efficiently utilizing stored body sugar, glycogen while maximizing aerobic output (or equivalently, running at or close to lactate threshold). Consequently, races involving stamina are usually 1-20 miles (although, for experienced/trained athletes, this includes the marathon (26.2 mi/42.2 km). Endurance running is almost universally considered ultra-marathon distances (greater than 26.2mi) - as single races, like the Spartathlon or Badwater Ultramarathon, or as expedition running as in Running the Sahara.
• link rhabdomyolysis and hyperthermia earlier  Done
• "Amphetamine should not be used in individuals with ... or severe agitation or anxiety" difference between these? Links?  Fixed In the source, I'm fairly certain agitation is referring to irritability as opposed to psychomotor agitation, which is the wikipedia page on that topic. I added a piped WL to irritability.
• Define FDA abbreviation on first use  Fixed I changed the FDA abbreviation to USFDA and added abbr templates to that term, since I did that for other abbreviations. I also removed the 2nd FDA wikilink and changed the first one to a piped wikilink (displayed without "United States") to "United States Food and Drug Administration" in the event FDA is ever disambiguated (since there's many national "FDAs"). The piped WL is currently just a redirect to the US FDA article.
• link to initiative is probably not the one intended; link to sociability not useful  Fixed by removing the WLs to sociability and initiative, since there isn't a psychology article on initiative. Not sure how I missed this since I normally check before linking. In any event, I'll go through the WLs in lists in the article just to make sure I didn't make any other unintended links.
• "is neurogenerative and neuroprotective from increasing the activity of cocaine and amphetamine regulated transcript." add "the psychostimulant protein" or similar for some more context here please  Done
• mitigate -> decrease; potentiate -> increase (switch to more common words where possible for the general audience this article is intended for)  Fixed
• "Due to the effect pH has on absorption, amphetamine also interacts with gastric acid reducers such as proton pump inhibitors and H2 antihistamines" is this solely due to the acid/base effect of the molecule, or is there some other (binding) effect going on here? Nutshell Edited: The sources i've checked only mention the acid-base effect. Seppi333 ( talk) 08:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• "Amphetamine primarily exerts its behavioral effects by modulating monoamine neurotransmitters in the brain,[20][79] through mechanisms primarily involving catecholamine neurotransmitters." tweak to remove repetitive "primarily"  Fixed - I revised it to "Amphetamine exerts its behavioral effects by modulating monoamine neurotransmission in the brain, through mechanisms that primarily involve catecholamines." I think that's a bit more direct/accurate as a summary of its mechanism of action/pharmacodynamics.
• "When urine pH is abnormal, the urinary recovery of amphetamine may range from 1–75%, depending on whether urine is too alkaline or acidic respectively." It's implied (I think) that alkaline urine results in low urinary recovery and acidic urine in high recovery, but I don't think "respectively" can be used like this. Perhaps something like "When urine pH is abnormal, the urinary recovery of amphetamine may range from a low of 1% to as much as 75%, depending on whether urine is too alkaline or acidic respectively."  Fixed That's actually a very good point/catch. I probably wouldn't have noticed that, but you're right since it implies excretion is solely a function of urine pH, which it's not. I used a slightly tweaked version of your revision (change in bold): "When urine pH is abnormal, the urinary recovery of amphetamine may range from a low of 1% to as much as 75%, depending mostly upon whether urine is too alkaline or acidic respectively." Hope that's okay.
• e.g. and i.e. are common Latin abbreviations and do not need to be italicized (see MOS:Ety) (in vitro is borderline, but less common than the other two, so if anything, that one should be italicized)  Fixed
• check article throughout for consistent usage of serial comma, e.g. "The free base is then dissolved in an organic solvent, sulfuric acid added and amphetamine precipitates out as the sulfate salt." vs. "Other transporters that amphetamine is known to inhibit are vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), SLC22A3, and SLC22A5." Done with the serial comma
• you should weed out some of those duplicate links again; I realize some are useful, but others not so (and you'll be asked to do this @FAC, I guarantee!)  Done let me know if I omitted any you think I shouldn't have from this edit - I cut the number of reported wikilinks reported using WP:AWB down to 2 per term.
• minor nit: in Amphetamine - Leuckart reaction.png, the "N" should be italicized  Fixed

Ok, all images have appropriate licences, the prose and MoS compliance is fine, the article is well-referenced to reliable sources (and to WP:MEDRS where appropriate), and the coverage seems to be appropriate given the fact that there are daughter articles where other relevant information is contained. The article is a certainly a solid GA, and I will promote it now. For FAC, you might consider finding an editor without knowledge of the subject matter to read through it and suggest places where the material might be too difficult. It's pretty dense material in some places (e.g. most of the Pharmacology section would be esoteric stuff for those without a biochem background), and much of the "interesting" material (to the average reader), like history, is in a different article. Good luck! Sasata ( talk) 19:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply