Talk:Oxcarbazepine

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): Gabewong group14, Jmorimune14, D Bunag 14. Peer reviewers: HpduongG13, BMacapinlacG13, PChuks13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Our group initially focused on the lead section, we intended to improve it by stating & citing the relevant indications for oxcarbazepine, and denoting its structural similarities to carbamazepine and the impact associated with that. Then we expanded the content in the medical uses section, by providing age restriction. Next, we tried to improve the side effect section by converting the format from paragraph to bullet points, so that the information would be easier to sort through. Finally, we attempted to expand the content in the article by including the following sections: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, pharmacogenetics, interactions and contraindications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabewong group14 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit Summary from 05Nov2015

1. Does this draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, their edits neither support nor deter the use of Oxcarbazepine.

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited published material?

Yes their edits include citations directly from package insert or approved secondary sources.

3. What recommendations can you provide your colleague for improvement of their draft?

· Additions made to the Pregnancy section were appropriate; however, the entire section may be considered too difficult to read for most of the public. A more concise and simplified revision can be made to properly explain what pregnancy category C meant, or a link to the pregnancy category system could have been provided.

· For the side effects portion, percentages could be listed to help the general public prioritize which side effects are most common.

· The last 2 sentences in side effects are not cited. The last sentence also seems to be anecdotal, which should be omitted. BMacapinlacG13 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Not sure why the summary of side effects was removed from the lead? Also not sure why a bunch of interactions were removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll split that up for readability:

• The summary of adverse effects in the lead was recently close to identical to the section actually titled “Adverse Effects”. Also, the reasons of the next bullet apply. Relevant difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxcarbazepine&type=revision&diff=806037601&oldid=806036934
• The summary was previously removed, for being full of errors, for not providing any additional information over the section then titled "Side Effects”, and for not having sufficient relevance to be recapitulated in half length of the section dedicated to in in the heading. That's not the purpose of the first paragraph. Take a look at other medical articles for guidance. Not needlessly spamming the lead paragraph, not duplicating without good reason, and having correct content are the imperatives here. Relevant difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxcarbazepine&diff=next&oldid=805897638
• Instead of asking for explanations on the user talk page (which will cause message to appear, IPs dont generally watch articles), then waiting some time so I can respond, you just revert without so much as a sensible comment. That's not assumption of good faith.
• Instead of fixing minor issues which were introduced with large edits or many consecutive edits, you just revert them all. That's not assumption of good faith. See bullet point 2 for an example of a relevant edit difference. See this edit for another example of a massive revert without any sensible explanation or, let alone, asking first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxcarbazepine&type=revision&diff=806055504&oldid=806050151
• Interactions were originally removed, because they were arbitrary selections, leading to wrong impressions. The most recent version, as was destroyed in your the most recent reversion, named a few substances which either might have large impact (eg getting pregnant) or are likely to be administered simultaneously. Additionally, the section was restructured for readability, clarity and sourced. Relevant difference see previous bullet point.
• Given your edit history, it cannot be assumed you didn't know better. Therefore, in summery all of this is nothing short of vandalism. Therefore, I will now request you be banned. Let's see how that goes, shall we?

--92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to include a summary of the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Apart from this not excusing all the other issues with your behaviour which I've just outlined, "A summary of the body of the article" does not validated picking a single section, adding a summary of that section only to the lead, without that one section having paramount importance over all the other sections. Where's your summary of pharmacology in the lead? A summary is not simply a shorter version of the same, it also means leaving things out and giving the reader an overview of what is to come. Though, again, this doesn't excuse you vandalising (see previous response for why this choice of words applies) tons of edits, instead of just adding a sentence or two about side effects if you feel they're needed so badly; when doing so, you could have fixed the substantial, content-wise mistakes of that side effect summary, too. The fix to a large edit / many edits with minor issues still isn't to revert.--92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The order of sections is determined by WP:MEDMOS, and the lead follows WP:LEAD and summarizes the body. Many people only read the lead, and removing the adverse effects from the lead is not OK. Please address this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS supports the order and seperation of sections I tried to work into the article a dozen times now. It does not support the obstructive reverts you and Doc James keep doing. Also, I cannot find anywhere in there that adverse effects are to be represented in the lead; care to point that out, specifically? Everyone can throw around general links to huge boiler plates of style manual; it's not useful. I already pointed that out to you here [1]. While it does seem sensible to add a comparative sentence in reference to other antiepileptic drugs, the general range of side effects and their general frequency, this sentence a) needs to be correct content-wise and b) shouldn't be a list just reiterating, recapitulating what mostly you yourself wrote in the "Adverse effects" section. Not that I'd still care about this article now, though. If y'all collectively fell in love with that old version, you keep it. I'm pretty much out of here, waiting for the undeserved range ban over this and ready to get on with what matters in life :-) 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the body. We generally put some side effects in the lead. This was why you were reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)