Talk:Entecavir
 | 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 Entecavir.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
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): Ashleyjkim, RosaA, Wli18, Tu.Vo, Wli19. Peer reviewers: Naveenhothi, Brentn9, Phuonglai.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Efficacy claim
edit"manufacturer claims that it is more efficacious than previous agents used to treat hepatitis B (lamivudine and adefovir)"
It isn't so much a claim, which implies that it isn't based on evidence, as a result of trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.168.8 (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Task Tracking - Group 12
editFor our page on Entecavir, our group wanted to focus on lengthening several of the existing sections (Tu + everyone) and curate our page afterwards by rearranging the order. As the current introduction is sparse, we wanted to provide a 3-paragraph lead, and add more information to the "Medical Uses" (Ashley/Wilson) and "Adverse Effects" (Ana) sections, and then plump up the "Mechanism of Action" as a group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyjkim (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject: Group 13's Peer Review (Fall 2016)
editSTUDENT 1 – Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
Yes, the draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. Group 12 did a good job on making sure the material and information that was added did not come from any source with a bias. The information was presented very neutrally. Naveenhothi (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
STUDENT 2 – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…
Yes, information was used from sources like the package insert, merck index, and drugs.com which are freely accessible, as well as many studies which can be found online. Brentn9 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
STUDENT 3 - Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? Yes, it is formatted according to Wikipedia’s guidelines.Jochuey (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
STUDENT 4 – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… No, it doesn’t show any evidence of plagiarism. As I looked through the link provided and read them, I saw no sign of copyright violation. Phuonglai (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)PhuongLai
Group 12 Response: Thank you for the review, Group 13! Since no problems were identified, no changes will be made. RosaA (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)