Wikipedia:Peer review/Sulbutiamine/archive1

Sulbutiamine

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are no more available resources on sulbutiamine. I used every available journal article that I could find. Sulbutiamine is not very well-studied, and I don't see how the article can get much longer. There is no available data on the pharmacokinetics of sulbutiamine. If necessary, I need to know how I can continue to develop the article because I'm out of ideas. I don't want to stray too far from the topic into lengthy secondary discussions. I would also value any criticism of the style and format (article structure, sentence structure, grammar, etc).

Thanks, Firewall62 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have truly exhausted the available reliable references then it is very important not to add additional material just to make the article longer. One thing the article should have is what you explained above about the lack of information about it. That seems rather important along with why it hasn't gotten much attention and whether or not it is in mainstream use, if references exist to document that. I see some bits about the lack of information, but that seems important enough to make it to the lead section. It's also a little hard to tell from the article how often it is prescribed, is it a drug that needs prescribing or is it available over the counter. Of course that should be in more general terms about its regulatory status around the world, not just the US. The therapeutic uses section doesn't mention the dosing required for those uses, but that should be there if possible especially given the conflicting dosing information reported later. Finally, expand the lead section to at least two full paragraphs that properly summarize the most important information in the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD for more. - Taxman ^Talk 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)