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

Nominator: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to be reviewing this article. There have been major improvements to the text since the last GA nomination, but not everything has been addressed; hopefully that can be taken care of through the course of this review. I'm still working on reviewing sources and getting a full grasp on the prose corrections needed. Reconrabbit 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section is extremely short and does not incorporate most of the relevant information from the article. Some things to include would be the history of the drug, possibly some preparation methods and society and culture information. Pseudoephedrine is a decent model of a similar decongestant with a better lead.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Some quotes are a little long, but the FDA and IHA have no copyright on their work, which makes it less of a concern. I don't know what the status of the Army website is.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The photo of propylhexedrine HCl is of very low quality and also causes a WP:SANDWICH issue with the structure image on the other side of the page. The same problem appears with Glenn E. Ullyot and the inhaler image and the photos of containers at the Brand Names header.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: