BGR-34 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: May 5, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BGR-34 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 |
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 BGR-34.
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CC-BY-SA declaration; text below was removed from the article by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references, which may also be used by future editors. Baffle gab1978 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ayurveda is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent [1] and practices derived from it form a type of alternative medicine. [2] [3] Whilst some researchers consider it to be pseudoscientific [4], others consider it a protoscience or trans-science system instead. [5] [6]
References
- ^ Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
- ^ Smith, Frederick M.; Wujastyk, Dagmar (2008). "Introduction". In Smith, Frederick M.; Wujastyk, Dagmar (eds.). Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms. New York, NY: SUNY Press. pp. 1–28. ISBN 9780791478165. OCLC 244771011.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
- ^ Semple D, Smyth R (2013). Chapter 1: Psychomythology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-969388-7.
{{ cite book}}
:|work=
ignored ( help)- ^ Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.
- ^ Manohar, P. Ram (2009). "The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition". In Paranjape, Makarand R. (ed.). Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India. Anthem Press. pp. 172–3. ISBN 9781843317760.
Baffle gab1978 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.
I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.
Also notifying the main contributor to the article. @ Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, PeaBrainC ( talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Reading now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Mainstream media, without a peep into its conspicuous claims, kept it in circulation by publishing reports of how BGR-34 is a breakthrough drug.......But other scientists and doctors are asking questions, and they can’t find any answers......A non-trivial feat if the mechanism of action, safety, efficacy and evidence of clinical management of diabetes is proven and peer reviewed. Except, it is not.......There are inconsistencies galore......
The question is - can there be a Good Article about a bad product, and would there be a perception that a GA reflects favorably on the quality of science for the product? Also, I agree with the opinion expressed in the preceding section, that this article is extremely over-referenced, belaboring minor factual statements with a long string of references that do not cumulatively add to the support of the statements. Less is more!!! David notMD ( talk) 17:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Without high quality trials, the efficacy of the drug remains unproven.[3][4] – This statement is not covered by the two sources. The problem is that it relates to the presence. This trial was published after the two sources were. So you would need a source stating that this trial did not prove efficacy and was not high standard, or reformulate in some way.
@ Winged Blades of Godric:, @ David notMD: Where do we stand? Do you two agree on the current version on the article? I have two additional concerns about the more recent additions. If you could address them, we should be good to go.
In my opinion, the entire Others subsection should be deleted before this completes the GA review. While it shines a valid critical spotlight on the India regulatory agencies which have been involved in producing and approving products of unproven efficacy, the content has nothing to do with BGR-34. The immediately preceding subsection on other anti-diabetes drugs of questionable value is sufficient to show that BGR-34 does not have a unique history. David notMD ( talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following sources are correctly placed in the claims section, although they seem dubious for uncritically making them. The way the text contextualizes them is a good effort but I'm still unsure we'd need them if other sources can be used. The two claims are about side effects as well as it being an effective DPP-4 inhibitor. The dubious sources that appear to be promotional, possibly press releases:
The current Alt News source could be used to cover the side effects claim instead, but I'm not sure yet which to use about DDP-4. Considering this article has the GA tag and that those sources passed through the process, I thought I'd post here instead of boldly removing them. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 07:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
BGR-34 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: May 5, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BGR-34 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 |
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 BGR-34.
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CC-BY-SA declaration; text below was removed from the article by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references, which may also be used by future editors. Baffle gab1978 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ayurveda is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent [1] and practices derived from it form a type of alternative medicine. [2] [3] Whilst some researchers consider it to be pseudoscientific [4], others consider it a protoscience or trans-science system instead. [5] [6]
References
- ^ Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
- ^ Smith, Frederick M.; Wujastyk, Dagmar (2008). "Introduction". In Smith, Frederick M.; Wujastyk, Dagmar (eds.). Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms. New York, NY: SUNY Press. pp. 1–28. ISBN 9780791478165. OCLC 244771011.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
- ^ Semple D, Smyth R (2013). Chapter 1: Psychomythology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-969388-7.
{{ cite book}}
:|work=
ignored ( help)- ^ Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.
- ^ Manohar, P. Ram (2009). "The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition". In Paranjape, Makarand R. (ed.). Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India. Anthem Press. pp. 172–3. ISBN 9781843317760.
Baffle gab1978 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.
I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.
Also notifying the main contributor to the article. @ Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, PeaBrainC ( talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Reading now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Mainstream media, without a peep into its conspicuous claims, kept it in circulation by publishing reports of how BGR-34 is a breakthrough drug.......But other scientists and doctors are asking questions, and they can’t find any answers......A non-trivial feat if the mechanism of action, safety, efficacy and evidence of clinical management of diabetes is proven and peer reviewed. Except, it is not.......There are inconsistencies galore......
The question is - can there be a Good Article about a bad product, and would there be a perception that a GA reflects favorably on the quality of science for the product? Also, I agree with the opinion expressed in the preceding section, that this article is extremely over-referenced, belaboring minor factual statements with a long string of references that do not cumulatively add to the support of the statements. Less is more!!! David notMD ( talk) 17:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Without high quality trials, the efficacy of the drug remains unproven.[3][4] – This statement is not covered by the two sources. The problem is that it relates to the presence. This trial was published after the two sources were. So you would need a source stating that this trial did not prove efficacy and was not high standard, or reformulate in some way.
@ Winged Blades of Godric:, @ David notMD: Where do we stand? Do you two agree on the current version on the article? I have two additional concerns about the more recent additions. If you could address them, we should be good to go.
In my opinion, the entire Others subsection should be deleted before this completes the GA review. While it shines a valid critical spotlight on the India regulatory agencies which have been involved in producing and approving products of unproven efficacy, the content has nothing to do with BGR-34. The immediately preceding subsection on other anti-diabetes drugs of questionable value is sufficient to show that BGR-34 does not have a unique history. David notMD ( talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following sources are correctly placed in the claims section, although they seem dubious for uncritically making them. The way the text contextualizes them is a good effort but I'm still unsure we'd need them if other sources can be used. The two claims are about side effects as well as it being an effective DPP-4 inhibitor. The dubious sources that appear to be promotional, possibly press releases:
The current Alt News source could be used to cover the side effects claim instead, but I'm not sure yet which to use about DDP-4. Considering this article has the GA tag and that those sources passed through the process, I thought I'd post here instead of boldly removing them. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 07:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)