Talk:NMDA receptor antagonist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
NMDA receptor antagonist was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 2007-02-16 |
Contents |
[edit] Lost hope?
I see you put this in there: "However, many researchers have lost hope for development of a neuroprotective NMDAR blocker, since no clinical trials using the drugs for stroke or TBI have been successful." The opinion you cite there isn't quite as decisive in saying "researchers have lost hope," and the way you present it rules out the possibilites of combining NMDAR antagonists with other drugs (like GABA-A agonists) to protect against NAN. Take a look: [1] , [2] , [3] . Jolb 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think a lot of researchers have given up on NMDAR blockers and a lot haven't. Certainly not everyone has given up. So I don't have a problem with changing the wording, go ahead. I think the major disappointments with the drug trials mostly occurred in the late 90's and the early part of this decade, so the paper from 1991 might be too optimistic. I just added a lot about said disappointments, let me know here if there's any problem with the material. delldot | talk 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think about it, this may be more the case in my area of specialty, traumatic brain injury. Obviously no one's giving up on memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's, since it was just FDA approved for the purpose. So you're probably right that it needs changing: edit at will. delldot | talk 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links in lead
I vaguely recall from somewhere in the manual of style it suggesting that you don't put links in the bold part in the lead. I'll look around and see if I can dig it up. If I can find it, would it be OK to move the links slightly further down? delldot | talk 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah ha, here it is. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links: "As a general rule, do not put links in the title; however, this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts." This case might qualify as a complex title, so I guess it's fine either way. I have a vague preference for unlinking the title, any objection? delldot | talk 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-competitive or uncompetitive?
Wow, thanks for that graphic, delldot. You're much more of an expert than me, so I have a question about this article: From what was written in NMDA Receptor, I saw (most) of the list of NMDA Receptor Antagonists, including the part about "non-competitive channel blocker." According to your graphic, however, channel blockers don't go with "non-competitive," they go with "uncompetitive." I'll do some research on this and try and find out myself, but maybe you know. Jolb 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, glad you like it! I think different researchers classify them differently. With most enzymes, it's either competitive or non-competitive inhibition, so probably most researchers look at it as "competitive" and "everything that's not competitive". When you get something with a channel, it's useful to make a further classification. But they're still, of course, not competitive, so some researchers still probably look at it that way. This is my guess. I've seen a number of different papers refer to uncompetitive blockade, I can look for them and hopefully stick them in. I noticed memantine listed as non competitive and listed it as uncompetitive. Peace, delldot | talk 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move? (from the incorrectly capitalized article)
I'd suggest moving this page to NMDA receptor antagonist since the naming conventions recommends sentence type capitalization (Capitalize the first letter and not the others unless there's a proper noun) and singular nouns except where you usually see it in the plural (e.g. French fried potatoes). Any objections or discussion? delldot | talk 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I realized that very soon after I created the page. I'll do it now. Jolb 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move
I'm going to put a {{db-histmerge|NMDA Receptor Antagonists}} template on the article, so an admin will come along, momentarily delete the article, and restore it with the history of NMDA Receptor Antagonists merged into this article's history. That way, jolb still gets credit under the GFDL for creating the article, etc. You can read more at WP:MOVE. delldot | talk 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I finished the history merge, including the history for both the talk pages. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is a beautiful article
I think that this article is a model article. It's well written, well referenced, has a very appropriate diagram, and not too long or short. Thank you, delldot! We should try to get it rated by an admin, as I'm sure it would get an A. Jolb 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the credit goes to you, of course. I suggest that we add some more information and then submit it for peer review, especially since neither of us is an expert. That way we can be sure to have all our facts straight when we go for GA later. I'm willing to work on adding info in the upcoming week. Thanks again for all your great work, Jolb. delldot | talk 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
Hi there, I didn't think this was quite at GA level yet. What is here is good, but the article is not comprehensive.
Positive aspects of article
Well referenced Good, clear diagram
Negative aspects of article
Too short and fails to explain subject completely.
Suggestions - Need more sections and more background. Most importantly, a section on the physiological/biochemical effects of these drugs. Also a history section outlining the development of the field and also uses of these drugs in folk medicine/natural product psychoactive drugs, a section on modern psychoactive drugs and a section on clinical trials.
The fragment on Olney's lesions doesn't belong in the introduction and needs to go with the rest of the material on side effects.
Hope this feedback helps. TimVickers 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
