Talk:Darunavir
 | This article is rated C-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 Darunavir.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmochizuki, Ktakamura, Lcsmith1. Peer reviewers: ST14, Atkyu18, H davis, Karakang.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
UCSF WikiProject Pharmacology
Dylan, Lindsey and I are part of the WikiProject Pharmacology course. We have decided to edit the lead and Side Effects sections to improve information and syntax. Specifically over the next couple of weeks, we would like to make the lead have more neutral wording, and reword the Side Effects section to be more accessible to a general audience. Please let us know if there are any problems with this plan. Thank you. Ktakamura (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review: Done by Group 8
Question 1 (Shannan): Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
A: Focusing on the sections that your group edited (lead and side effects), I thought that your writing definitely reflected a neutral point of view. When reading, I felt that the author was trustworthy, and I also liked that there were no obvious statements trying to make darunavir sound superior to the many other HIV medications available. The information was well balanced and supported through sources. One thing that I did notice, although this doesn't fit the question I am answering, was that you may want to consider moving the drug interaction information to a different section instead of the side effects section. Great job! ST14 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Question 2 (Amy): Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify. A: Simply looking at the sections Group 7 worked on, the edits they included are cited properly and are verifiable and freely accessible. I clicked on all the citation links for the lead and side effect sections and saw that no membership was needed to read the secondary sources. Good work finding multiple and varying sources that are readily accessible to the general public without needing any institution-based memberships such as Micromedex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkyu18 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Question 3 (Kara): Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify… A: Yes, the edits are formatted according to Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. It follows the pharmacology style guide in medical uses, side effects, mechanism of action, and history sections. One recommendation is that interactions and contraindications/precautions be moved to their own respective sections, instead of being grouped together with side effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakang (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Question 4 (Hunter) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
A: I do not see any evidence of plagiarism within the introduction or side effects section of the Darunavir page. I also see no evidence of copyright violation. I think the edits look great and accomplish the goal of neutralizing the introduction as well as expanding the side effects section. H davis (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)