Talk:Stavudine
 | 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 Stavudine.
|
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): Catloucsf, Katherine.Kazanjian, Amandannhi, AndrewPhamUCSF, Amandannhit. Peer reviewers: SF355317, Rlfunk928, Kevin.tran, Aneelamm, Rtcastil.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Group 26 Edit Plan
Introduction
- Add history at the end - Content - Grammar - Citing/linking clarity
Pharmacology
- MOA - Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism - Pharmacogenomics
Adverse Events - Edit for grammar, content, clarity
Mechanism of Action - Reword
Pharmacokinetics
- Add half life, bioavailability
Add drug-drug interaction section
Add contraindications section
Add use in special populations (ex. geriatrics, pediatrics)
Resources to use: package insert, pubmed, cochrane
AndrewPhamUCSF (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Group 27 Feedback
1.STUDENT 1 – Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, the draft submission mostly reflects a neutral point of view for Stavudine. All statements made in the article were factual and consistently linked back to sources. My only comment is that the introduction seems to weigh more on reasons why stavudine is not a good drug as HIV therapy since there is an entire paragraph dedicated to that. Aneelamm (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2.STUDENT 2 – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify… Most of the points included are verifiable and accessible except for the following below: 1) Opening paragraph, link to WHO recommendation of phasing out medication 2) Pregnancy and breastfeeding: link to source citing EFFECT on fetus. 3) Pregnancy and breastfeeding: link to source citing evidence against use of breastfeeding mothers 4)Elderly: link to citation saying that use of medication in "elderly are more likely to have decreased renal function, they are more likely to develop toxic side effects" 5) India: no links citing that stavudine is still first choice in first line therapy in India. 6) Mechanism of action: contains no citations to where information regarding mechanism of action was taken from. [non-verifiable, non-accessible] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtcastil (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3.STUDENT 3 – Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify… Overall, the structure and format is consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. Medical jargon is kept to a minimum, concepts are explained well with 'plain English' wording, and the section order/format is acceptable. One suggestion is to not address the audience as "you" and to keep the tone of the article neutral and in the third person. Rlfunk928 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
4.STUDENT 4 – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright, as concluded by various online plagiarism checkers, as well as a manual random audit of sources. SF355317 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)