Talk:Norepinephrine/Archive 1

Archive 1

SPAM

I am a grad student in biology at ASU -- just noticed that this page has been spammed. Look at the bottom, there are those pharmaceutical links and huge white space. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THIS?! I don't know how... I tried going to the history, but couldn't find the right version to revert! PLEASE HELP!?!?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.169.233.29 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Pronunciation

Hello, I'm curious as to the english pronunciation of noradrenaline and norepinephrine. Would someone please clue me in? 63.192.52.26 20:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The pronunciation is "noor-ep-eh-nef-rin", listen to it here:

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?norepi01.wav=norepinephrine

Norepinephrine or Noradrenaline?

and which regions are they, then? --Anon

Added text from presumably public domain resource:

• http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter4/sec2_1.html

from the U.S. Surgeon-General.

If this substance is known as Noradrenaline outside the USA - in most of the world - shouldn't this article be called Noradrenaline instead of Norepinephrine? - Quirk 20:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, is there any chance we could rename this site to Noradrenalin(e)?!? Apart from people in the US, nobody uses the term Norephinephrine.

There is a huge problem with Norepi: Norepi will increase MAP drastically, so it eventually starts a baroreceptor depressor reflex (yes, the depressor center is back from holidays) which starts reflex bradycardia! Therefore it actually decreases the heartrate, lowers venous return after a bit, though you have a high MAP. Consequences are, that you probably let the patient go one step further in his shock level.

I too dislike the newfangled epinephrine and norepinephrine names, but I believe they were chosen as the main Wikipedia name because they are now the International Nonproprietary Name, as set by the WHO. See for arguments as to why they stink.

--JMD (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this renaming of the article from Norepinephrine to Noradrenaline/Norepinephrine. There was no consensus in the above thread for this move, and to the have so WP:Boldly moved was therefore disruptive, especially given the active discussion at Talk:Epinephrine where again there is no consensus to move from the internationally agreed (by the World Health Organisation) International Nonproprietary Name. Finally see WP:MEDMOS "Naming conventions" for generally agreed naming of drugs. David Ruben ^Talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I broke something. I apparently tried to move the page a few minutes after you did, and now the Norepinephrine page has disappeared. I have to run out for now, so I can't take care of it at the moment. If someone can figure out what's going on or alert wikitech, I'd much appreciate it. Sorry for the trouble. --David Iberri (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've successfully restored Norepinephrine. Let me know if there are any other problems. --David Iberri (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What?! Some people actually call this hormone "Norepinephrine?" Geeze, that's cumbersome. Poor yanks! (I thought NorAdrenaline was difficult enough to say!)Johno (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Must we keep with worn out british names??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Noradrenalin is not a "worn-out British name"; like it or not it is the name used commonly throughout Europe and around the world. The fact that north America prefers norepinephrine does not justify cultural imperialism. By common usage the article would be entitled noradrenaline. It is also a more accurate reflection of history and etymology (see ). However, for political purposes the name norepinephrine has largely triumphed, and so this article is correctly titled.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.97 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not put weight to norepinephrine over noradrenaline. In Australia one NEVER hears of epinephrine except if you read scientific articles from america. British and Australian articles would prefer to use adrenaline. Epinephrine is essentially an americanism and it is not an accepted alternative internationally. Also, I believe most americans would understand what is meant by adrenaline but I know that most Australians or British have no idea what epinephrine is. Adrenaline is hardly a 'worn out british name' but is the currently used term outside of the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.52.130.149 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I also looked up the french term out of curiosity and they use adrenaline (with an acute accent on the 'e' of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.52.130.149 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The article argues that "medical authorities [4] have promoted norepinephrine as the favored nomenclature". However, the medical authorities being referred to are the U.S. National Library of Medicine - of course they are promoting it, they are (without critisism), obviously biased. The REST of the world uses "noradrenaline". Wikipedia (or Wikipaedia?) exist's through its foundations of allowing contributors to input from all corners of the planet, not just the USA, which pretty much makes the term 'norepinephrine' foreign to the vast majority of the English speaking world. Please re-title the article back to "noradrenaline" to suit the majority of this planet's English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.172.37 (talk • contribs) Looie496 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 This annoys the flaven off of a lot of people in the uk as well...can we change it already? if wikipedia is meant to be global i mean...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.200.2 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 

Image removed by Anon.User 146.82.167.179 -- I wonder why .....

The image that shows the molecular structure of Norepinephrine has been removed by Anon.User 146.82.167.179 today. Does anyone know why ? Was there a problem with the figure ? -- PFHLai 22:03, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any problem with Image:Norepinephrine.png, except that the label for the alcohol group on the benzene was a little truncated. The chemistry was fine and the image definitely serves a purpose, so I've reverted. --Diberri | Talk 23:49, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Metabolites

I'm going to have a go at elucidating the biological metabolites of noradrenaline (aka norepinephrine) in this article. Please expand upon this effort. Also, please mod my formatting so that it conforms. I'm afraid I don't have the patience to learn the required minutiae of preferred formatting :P - Adam

let me guess: You use Strattera yourself? :)

Naming Problem?

I found a small problem with the authors naming of some of the classes of drugs - both selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and serotonin norepinephrine inhibitors have the acronym SNRI. Can anyone who has the knowledge please fix this in the post? And to the problem of which name it goes by, in all the scientific literature I've come across, its epinephrine - and I'm in Canada. Just take a look at your epi-pens - they're not adreni-pens. - Mike

EpiPen is a brand name; all that tells you is that the brand is american. Adrenaline vs epinephrine is a massive debate in medical literature, with entire books devoted to it. Epi-nephros is greek for "above kidney" Ad-renal is latin for the same thing. My favourite book title on the subject is "Even the greeks call it Adrenaline". :) The only reason for a difference is a now expired US patent which used the name "Adrenalin" for something entirely unrelated and someone decided it was too similar, so switched to the greek transliteration; which has since become the INN for some reason, even though the offending patent expired long ago and IMHO the name epinephrine should have expired with it. --KX36 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vasopression isn't a word

Maybe this came about as a misunderstanding of the word "vasopressin," which is a hormone that causes vasoconstriciton.

I'm changing it heading to "Vasoconstriction." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.203.126.65 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

usage of in vitro

Under the heading Hypotension, there is mention of Norepinephrine's effects "in vitro" (which refers to within a test tube). It's likely that this was meant to read "in vivo". Thoughts? -Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.142.46 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in vitro refers to observations under controlled conditions (ie, in an experiment), not necessarily "in a test tube." But the sentence you're talking about does seem to refer to findings observed in vivo, so I think you're right. --David Iberri (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neurotransmitter?

I have a hard time understanding this sentence:

Norepinephrine also has a neurotransmitter role when released diffusely in the brain as an antiinflammatory agent.

Does the body naturally release it in the brain to fight inflammation, or are we talking about the use of norepinephrine as an antiinflammatory drug? Norepinephrine only acts as a neurotransmitter when it is released as antiinflammatory agent? Why and how does this happen? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that sentence is written in a very confusing way. I believe your first idea is most likely to be correct; the brain releases it to fight inflammation naturally. I rewrote the sentence in the article, based on the reference that was given to support the initial sentence. Please correct me if I have the wrong idea on this too. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DEFUSES (not)

'diffuses' is intended if someone will kindly correct it.

I have corrected it. (You could also have corrected it yourself.) Thanks for the pointer. Looie496 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute: what does NE increase the tension of?

IP editor 69.118.64.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I have been arguing about how NE increases blood pressure: the IP editor wrote that it does so by increasing the tension of muscles; my understanding is that it results from contractions of the walls of blood vessels and that muscles don't come into the picture. The most recent edit had an edit summary saying tension of blood vessels refers to their length (like tension of a cable) whereas tension of muscles (of blood vessels) refers to their diameter -- which doesn't make sense to me. Would it be possible for anybody to find a good source that backs up one story or another? Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Idiotic: What the hell does "probabilistic shift" mean?

Who normal uses terms that do no have known definitions like "probabilistic shift", please? --68.237.35.133 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence a bit. But the whole paragraph is pretty technical, and I'm not sure that I've made it all that much more understandable. Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not. "[T]he [..] rate [...] in [...] probabilities" is just pure nonsense. '[A] "predictive cueing" situation' is an empty phrase. '[A]ttentional paradigms' is incorrect as no word 'attentional' exists. 'Yu et al.' may indicate someone living under a bridge as people have first names and some - professional titles. Wikipedia is for laymen and not for experts. Everything should be self-explanatory. The sentence was not too technical, but just badly written.--68.237.35.133 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's actually just technical -- you'll find all of these terms commonly used in the academic literature on psychology. I don't fully agree with you that everything on Wikipedia should be self-explanatory -- my feeling is that the higher the level of a concept, the more background it is reasonable to expect from readers. I do, however, agree with you that this particular article uses more jargon than it ought to. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Link moved

Link 1 of 2, Surgeon general link needs finding and re-linking. Tom H Paine (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation ?32 is problematic.

It goes off the page, which is visually detracting. Someone fix? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My response was actually to remove that entire section. All of the ideas there are non-mainstream, and the sources don't meet Wikipedia's standards as explained in WP:MEDRS, with the possible exception of the first, but that one is a bad link anyway. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Need to Differentiate between Norepinephrine (Adrenaline) and Norepinephrine (Medical)

The function of norepinephrine (adrenaline) is continual use by our bodies in a multitude of ways. The medical use of a man-made form of it for a specific use is extremely recent. Therefore the natural function should be described--in detail--first. WP is written first of all for laypeople, not for doctors and medical students. (Besides--Mother Nature holds the patent).Margaret9mary--can't remember my old password205.167.120.201 (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Drug box or "infobox neurotransmitter"?

Yesterday I replaced the "drugbox" template that has been on this page for a while with a neurotransmitter infobox; Doc James (talk · contribs) reverted, saying "restored drug box as it is a very important medication most commonly". I can't agree with that rationale. It is a moderately important medication but in my view it is far more important as a hormone and neurotransmitter, and the information in the neurotransmitter infobox is much more useful to the average reader. I'm starting to rework this article -- when I'm done I expect it will have one or two paragraphs about the role of NE as an injected drug, and several dozen paragraphs about its role as a hormone and neurotransmitter. What do other editors think? (Consider this a sort of informal RfC.) Looie496 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Norepinephrine as a drug

Clinical data
Trade names	Levarterenol, Levophed, Norepin
AHFS/Drugs.com	Monograph
License data	US FDA: Norepinephrine
Pregnancy category	AU: B3
Routes of administration	Intravenous
ATC code	C01CA03 (WHO)
Legal status
Legal status	AU: S4 (Prescription only) CA: ℞-only UK: POM (Prescription only) US: ℞-only
Pharmacokinetic data
Metabolism	Hepatic
Excretion	Urine (84-96%)
Identifiers
CAS Number	51-41-2 Y
IUPHAR/BPS	505
DrugBank	DB00368 Y
UNII	X4W3ENH1CV
ChEBI	CHEBI:18357 Y
ChEMBL	ChEMBL1437 Y
(verify)

It is both a drug and neurotransmitter. What is the best way to have both sets of information with minimal overlap in scope? Can both infoboxes be used? What are the drawbacks of using two infoboxes? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The main drawback is that both infoboxes are pretty large. It would be possible to place a trimmed-down version, as I've placed here, in the section on medical uses, but it is still a bit awkward. I'm not sure that all of those identifiers are necessary -- most of them I don't even recognize. Looie496 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• while you do have a point, I would have to go with DocJames restored drug box as it is a very important medication per [1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has the hormone, only some will receive it as a drug. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I came here from the note at WT:NEURO. I'm a bit amused at how this seems like a disagreement between editors with MDs and editors with PhDs, but to me, this is very clearly a case where the role as a neurotransmitter should take priority. Its status as a drug results from the fact that it is a neurotransmitter, not the other way around. Dopamine is chemically similar, and it's used medicinally, but our page uses the transmitter infobox at the top. Pharmacologically, NE is just one of many sympathomimetic drugs in clinical use, but it really does have a unique historical place in the history of the science of neurotransmission. I have no objection to giving prominent coverage to its drug use as well, and perhaps there is some way to present the drug data in graphical form somewhere on the page, but the box at the top should treat it first as a neurotransmitter. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency -- I switched the dopamine article from "drugbox" to "infobox neurotransmitter" a few days ago, so that probably shouldn't be used as a precedent. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL! Duly noted. I suggest the creation of a PhD-bot, to do that at numerous pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of the most important medications of my profession. People care a great deal about drugs / medications. Keeping WP more clinically focused is important rather than having it focused around mechanisms of action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's one of the most important transmitters of my profession! I think it's important for Wikipedia to be educational. In no way am I saying that we should make it difficult for readers to find the clinical stuff. But how about this: can we develop a modified infobox that combines the two? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If we look at the "drugbox" it contains most of the info as the "neurotransmitter box" bot also contains important clinical informoration that the neurotransmitter box does not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What about creating a Norepinephine (drug) article to discuss this aspect, much like we have separated Cannabis and Cannabis (drug). Sizeofint (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that this is currently a high-importance neurology and molecular biology article but only a mid-importance pharmacology article. Might this indicate that the neurotransmitter aspect should have precedence? Sizeofint (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox

could we merge in the clinical medication content into the neurotransmitter box for when both apply? I do not find how important different projects rank something to be a very strong argument. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm the wrong editor to give advice on technical stuff, but assuming that one of the infoboxes can be edited to add more information types, then that seems like the best way to go. In other words, maybe we could come up with a merged or combined box that includes both the basic science and the clinical information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can do that. I created the "infobox neurotransmitter" template and can modify it. Alternatively it would be possible to create a special template just for this article ("infobox norepinephrine") if we want to go that way. The main issue is to keep it from getting outrageously long, but in my opinion some of the chemistry info in the drugbox has no value to anybody and could be left out. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is possible to embed one infobox inside another using "|module =" parameter. They do it at {{Infobox lighthouse}}. Sizeofint (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am mainly wanting the stuff under "clinical data". As a number of neurotransmitters are meds would be good to have this in the formal box. Would be good to adjust the dopamine box aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Embedding has the advantage of being simpler to implement and maintain. We wouldn't have to worry about propagating a change in {{Drugbox}} to {{Infobox neurotransmitter}}. Essentially it allows for separation of concerns. They way they do it with lighthouses and historic places looks good I think. See for example Middle Bay Light. Sizeofint (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox

• As far as I can tell the Drugbox template doesn't have good support for embedding, but is this satisfactory? Looie496 (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to look at Template:Infobox NRHP to see how they allow for embedding. I haven't figured out infobox programming yet. Sizeofint (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• • The embedded content does not look very good IMO. I prefer the proposal below.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the page I linked? It looks better than the mockup on this page. There isn't a weird box-inside-a-box issue. Sizeofint (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Split

As already suggested above, I think this article should be split into two (similar to insulin and insulin (medication)). I do not see why the drug is automatically more important that an neurotransmitter. In addition to the problem of the infoboxes, the suggested order of sections recommended by WP:MCBMOS and WP:MEDMOS conflict. Most of the prose in this article is about the neurotransmitter and not the drug. Putting the drug section first puts indue weight on the drug. We could solve all these inconsistencies by splitting the article into Norepinephrine and Norepinephrine (medication). Boghog (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

How about a disambig. Than Norepinephrine (neurotransmitter) and Norepinephrine (medication). I think that would give equal weight to both topics and would be a good way forwards for these types of issues. Each type of article can than get the proper infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion Seppi333,but isn't a middle ground always best ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to an Argument to moderation, the answer is no. It's a logical fallacy. Sizeofint (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The neurotransmitter is unequivocally the primary topic. There is absolutely no reason to DAB the norepinephrine page just for the sake of a medication that the vast majority of readers probably wouldn't care to read about anyway. How many incoming backlinks to this page do you think are related to the drug as opposed to the neurotransmitter? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Neurotransmitter as a parenthetical DAB isn't even a sufficient scope anyway, since it's also a hormone. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO that norepinephrine is a medication is the main topic. I however see a compromise as reasonable in this situation as others disagree. We know that 5% of google searches are for health care information (diseases and medications). People care a great deal about this content.

What we could do is create a disambig with one for the medicine and one for the neurotransmitter/hormone and see were most people go. If they are within a factor of 5 or 10 of each other than we keep the disambig. If one is more than 10 fold the other than it becomes the primary article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to quantify this, but I note that dobutamine, a drug more or less comparable to norepinephrine in clinical usage as I understand it, shows about 10000 page views over the past 30 days, whereas the norepinephrine article shows over 40000. That suggests to me that 3/4 of the views relate to other aspects. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dobutamine is way way less used than norepinephrine clinically. While I frequently ( a couple of times a week use norepi) I have never used dobutamine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not treat the norepinephrine page in the same way as epinephrine is treated - with the drug mentioned in the lead and just incorporated into the article? --Iztwoz (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with a disambig. Merging of two lengthy infoboxes is messy and produces an excessively long infobox that doesn't function well for what is currently the main subject of this article, the norepinephrine neurotransmitter, Currently there are only two short paragraphs ("Medical uses" and "Drug interactions") that deal specifically with the norepinephrine medication. Adding additional medication specific sections (WP:PHARMOS#Medications) on "Contraindications", "Adverse effects", "Overdose", and especially "Pharmacology" (that overlaps with "Function") would clash with the present organization of this article. Boghog (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Informal RFC: How to split?

The section above appears to be reaching a consensus to split the article in two, one relating to the drug, the other to the hormone/neurotransmitter. However there isn't yet a consensus on how to arrange the split. There are basically three possibilities: (1) No default -- norepinephrine becomes a disambig page, referring to the other two; (2) default=drug --- norepinephrine is about the drug, norepinephrine (hormone and neurotransmitter) is linked from the top of it; (3) default=neurotransmitter -- norepinephrine is about the neurotransmitter and hormone, norepinephrine (drug) is linked from the top of it. Which do you favor? Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I favor default=neurotransmitter for two reasons: first, I think it will be the most common meaning readers are looking for; second, at a practical level, the norepinephrine article is currently the target of several hundred wikilinks, and by my count approximately ten relate to it as a drug. It would be much easier to disambiguate those than the others, and much easier to set up future wikilinks correctly. Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Also favor default=neurotransmitter, the neurotransmitter came long before the drug. Norepinephrine is a drug because it is a hormone/neurotransmitter, not the other way around. Neurotransmitter is the more fundamental concept, the drug is an application of that concept. Boghog (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is which topic are people more likely looking for rather than which came first historically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I favor default=no default. As explained above we could run an experiment to see which is the most common topic the generally population is looking for. I have a feeling that it is the medication. But happy to compromise and just go with no default. Am also happy to run an experiment and let our readers decide by basing it on pageviews to each article after three months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think the suggested experiment is the best idea, but if for whatever reason the page views for both pages are a tie, or very near to it, we should default to the neurotransmitter, as it is a more fundamental topic. After all you tend to teach physiology before you teach pathophysiology and pharmacology. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Default=neurotransmitter; if this page became a dab, every single backlink to this page would need to be cleared or adjusted. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • And that is bad how? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know if you're serious, but it's bad because there are hundreds of them -- just click on "what links here". Unless it can be automated, that means several hours of mind-numbing work. Looie496 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • They need to be gone through to make sure they are going to the right place anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I have already done that. In the great majority of cases it is obvious from the title of an article that it's referring to the neurotransmitter/hormone aspect. In all the cases where I thought there might be any doubt, I looked at the article, and altered the link if it was indeed referring to the drug aspect. But that's a tiny minority of cases. Looie496 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • While you have missed some such as Sepsis&oldid=679065756#Vasopressors. Will look at the issue further in a couple weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Default=neurotransmitter. I'm actually not convinced that we need to split the page at all, which is why I hesitated to comment until now. But seeing that there is an emerging consensus to split, neurotransmitter should take priority over drug, as the more fundamental topic that is always taught first, per other editors above. I have low enthusiasm for the "no default" option, because the resulting DAB would apparently find itself as the only page on Wikipedia to be in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic. (Really? I'm kind of surprised, actually.) The "experiment" seems unnecessary to me, and there would be a question about how long to let it run (what if there's a burst of interest in the basic science in those first three months?). And, what seems to me to be the most important consideration is that, in any case, there will be a hatnote at the top of both pages – and that means that not being the default is pretty trivial for our readers. Those readers coming here for medical information will still find it useful to be aware of the underlying science, and the additional information that they seek will be a mere click away, right from the very top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Note: I just split off the drug-related material into norepinephrine (drug). This is not an obstacle to the "no default" option if we ultimately choose to go in that direction. As I noted above the main obstacle to that option is that it would require several hundred wikilinks to be changed. My action would be an obstacle for the "default=drug" option, but that's not really on the cards anyway at this point. If the name I gave the new article is suboptimal, it can easily be changed. Looie496 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Note: I have now fixed all of the wikilinks that should point to norepinephrine (drug), as far as I can tell. If we decide to go with "default=neurotransmitter" no further changes are needed to wikilinks or article structure, but (to repeat) nothing that I have done up to this point is an obstacle if we ultimately decide to go with "no default". Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norepinephrine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Good. I won't be online much between Jan 5 and Jan 14, but I'll keep up as much as I can. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review

The process

First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.

I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.

This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.

Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary reports

Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:

So far so good, peer reviewer tool analysis incomplete.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Vacation

I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.

I am back from vacation.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:

Prose

It is reasonably well written.

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) prose

Comment - This sentence is located in the last paragraph and seems to be quite long and have its share of clauses: "Early in the twentieth century Walter Cannon, who had popularized the idea of a sympatho-adrenal system preparing the body for fight and flight, and his colleague Arturo Rosenblueth developed a theory of two sympathins, sympathin E (excitatory) and sympathin I(inhibitory), responsible for these actions."; I was going to break it up into two sentences rather than write all this, but thought you might like to do it yourself since it seems to be quite an important idea.

Thank you, it reads much better. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

✓Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓ Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar

This is still ongoing.
✓ Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Manual of style

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)

I edited the lead and want you to take a look at it to tell me you think it is appropriate. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a very small copy-edit, but other than that it seems fine to me. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC),

✓Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Layout

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Word choice

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)
✓Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual, accurate and verifiable

This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.

 Note: The article would be better if you sourced this statement: "...norepinephrine can either be broken down by monoamine oxidase...". Its one of those statements that I know is true, but the source only supports the re-uptake of norepinephrine. I went to the monamine oxidase article and couldn't find a source there. I have a textbook, perhaps I can find the ref...but you should also look. It is an important 'thing' about the regulation of norepinephrine and I would feel better if the info was sourced. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I found and inserted a source. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Note: - question really. Does norepinephrine have an effect or is it used by the parasympathetic nervous system? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be surprising if it had some sort of inhibitory effect, but I haven't seen any source stating that it does. It is not used by the parasympathetic system in any way as far as I know. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It does have a 'pacemaker'-type of effect, just heard about it in lecture on Thursday but I will insert that later. You've done most of the work and this one comment of mine does not need to 'fixed' for the article to become a good article.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

✓Good to go

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference section

✓ Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.

Broad in its coverage

The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.

 Note: Would it make the article better to describe the effects on the heart more specifically like increasing heart rate and cardiac output, stroke volume? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess you mean adding a paragraph to the Functions section focused on the heart. That would make sense to me, if that's what you mean. Looie496 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

✓ Good to go.

Stable

✓The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.

Images

✓The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.

"Graphic artist" is too strong. I have created a bunch of images, but in this case all I did was change the labels from French to English. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief

• For the bullet-point list in the Sympathetic nervous system, remove the periods at the end because none of them are sentences (they're all fragments except the ones with multiple sentences). Also, try to condense each bullet-point into just one sentence.

N I don't agree with this. It's hard to explain exactly why, but it feels wrong to me and I think it would look weird to most readers. I would welcome an opinion from Bfpage. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Back from vacation, very, very sorry to keep you waiting. I will take a look immediately.

✓ I took a look at the list. Having periods at the end of the phrases is not exactly grammatically correct, but that will not be a reason I would not give the article a good review. I do know that the FA process would assess this more strongly, but I will not. It is fine. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• wikilink anatomy words like locus coeruleus or, if it doesn't have its own article, briefly explain it.

 Already done I agree with this suggestion, but I think the article already follows it, except in cases where a term is used multiple times in a section, in which case the MOS says that it should only be wikilinked on the first occurrence. Pointers to specific instances that ought to be linked would be welcome. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One link per term is sufficient and preferred.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The article contains the term locus coerruleus about four or five times. Though this does not need to be changed for a GA review, what are the thoughts behind wiki-linking it so many times?

 Remind

Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

My preference would be to not change that. The term is likely to be unfamiliar to lots of readers, and all the wikilinks are in different sections, far from each other. It seems to me that there is value in not forcing the reader who wants to look it up to explicitly type the term in order to find it -- especially given the difficulty of spelling it. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the History section, change "Early in the twentieth century Walter Cannon..." to "Early in the twentieth century, Walter Cannon..."

N This is basically a style issue, and my preference is to follow a style that minimizes the use of commas. But if Bfpage agrees that the sentence needs more commas I will change it. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ I have a similar editing style and use clauses and commas when I am forced to by the avoidance of copyright issues. I also use sentences without commas, or clauses since I edit in the same way. In my opinion, the sentence does not 'have to' be changed. But really this seems like such a minor thing. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• For ref no. 57 (P. Holtz), add the parameter |language=German

 Done Done, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comments and your participation in the review. It looks you did a pretty good run through the article and found things that I likely might have missed. I would quietly suggest that the time it took to write the sentence about the periods might have been greater than the time it would have taken to remove them. The more eyes looking at this review, the better. The very best of regards,::  Bfpage |leave a message  12:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to have proposed changes raised here, particularly since I disagree with some of these and would much rather discuss them than be forced to decide whether to revert them. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)