Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of commercially available insulins/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of commercially available insulins

[edit]

List of commercially available insulins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) This list has been my passion for a very long time. I know this article has only been made over the past few days, but behind the scenes it's a culmination of months of research and years of curiosity. Being a diabetic myself, I've searched for an index of insulin brands to no avail. Since Wikipedia is my hobby and it's a general reference, I figured there would be no better place to input this research. Thus, I created this article. I do believe that this list is my best work, and meets all of the criteria. I'm excited to see what you reviewers think of it. (A bit scared too.) Best wishes, MallardTV[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Brand Name becomes !scope=col | Brand Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |Admelog becomes !scope=row | Admelog. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all the accessibility issues you pointed out- thanks a lot! MallardTV (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
Source review/comments

I'm not going to commit to a full source review just yet but due to my knowledge of WP:MEDRS I feel like I might be able to help out a bit here.

  • I'm not sure the exact threshold for using sources for images but File:Insulin short-intermediate-long acting.svg may benefit from a source.
  • You have a couple bare URLS that should be fixed
  • Some of the journals are wikilinked and some are not. I'd consider switching to either all linked or not linked.
  • Upon first glance, while Basaglar and Abasaglar are regional., However, other smaller pharmacutical companies also produce insulin, such as Mannkind (Afrezza), Viatris (Semglee), Lupin (Lupisulin), and Biocon (Basalog and unbranded insulins)., It was developed by Sanofi-Aventis., providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins., Insulin degludec is a modified form of insulin in which a single amino acid is deleted compared to human insulin. It is also conjugated to hexadecanedioic acid via a gamma-L-glutamyl spacer at the amino acid lysine at position B29., The most common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea., Insulins that are used mostly in humans are sometimes also used in animals such as cats and dogs., and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. appear to be unsourced.
  • The way the tables are cited (as in having the ref right by the name) makes it unclear where you are getting the information forthe manufacturer and other info from.
  • [2] is giving me an error code
  • Is there a more updated source for [3]
  • Again I would look for a more updated ref for [4] (take a read through WP:MEDDATE)
  • Same applies for any ciation before 2015 excluding cocherane reviews. If there is no newer sources or the newer sources are lower quality then no use in changing them but it's something to consider.
Additional comments
  • From a technical point of view I see some things that could be improved upon such as Common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) which should be written as low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) according to WP:MTAU. Additionally this only has to be stated the first time you use the term hypoglycemia and then you can either stick to using the term hypoglycemia or low blood sugar
  • There is quite a few very short standalone sentences that should be merged or expanded per WP:LAYOUT.
  • treat hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium levels). same as my first point
  • gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications, including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic states Since this bit is in the lead it could use some work to make it less technical
  • A very brief explanation of the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes may be helpful but it depends more on if the list contents heavily revolve around the difference
  • Some minor overlinking (liver is linked twice for example, and countries don't need to be linked)
  • It is typically administered by injection under the skin it may be important (I'm not sure as I haven't read the source) if the medication is typically administered into the fat or muscle (assuming fat due to the locations you listed).

Okay I think I've given you quite a bit to work with right now. Let me know if you have any questions. Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dealt with the citation stuff and the technical stuff. It looks like i fixed the overlinking. The difference between types isn't important from an insulin standpoint. MallardTV (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the difference not being relevant. There is still some unrefernaced areas. This is optional but the pdfs that were bare links may benifet from the website name and/or an archive date just cause pdfs seem to be especially prone to link rot. Additionally, since you've added access dates for other websites, your other citations should have them aswell (when their is a url that is). I'm still seeing some inconsistancies in the linking of journals/publishers as well as some bare urls. [5] should have the doi added as well. Did you look into more updated studies for some of the older citations? Once you tidy up the refs a bit I'll continue with my source review. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Checking the older refs, there are indeed some sparse more recent things that have the same info. However, these seem to be much less reliable and as stated earlier just say the exact same thing. As for the journal linking, I think I got all the ones that have wiki articles. I added some more refs in sparse areas as well. MallardTV (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the newer sources aren't as reliable then older sources work just fine. providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins. and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. both appear to be unsourced. I'm going to go through each ref and point out any issues I find.
  • [6] add DOI, add access date for url, link journal, add volume page number info etc
  • [7] add volume, issue, page number etc
  • [8] wikilink journal
  • [9] Capitilize drug name. Side note, capitilization should be consistent throughout the article, instead of just using the capitilization the source uses meaning anything after a colon need a capital.
  • [10] add journal link
  • [11] wikilink journal
  • [12] wikilink pub
I'm starting to realize that the vast majority of your refs have inconsistences. Could you please look through the sources and look for these inconsitencies yourself? use the suggestions I have provided thusfar to guide you. For each citation look for missing info, wikilinks that could be added, and punctiation/grammar within the citation title. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I should be done in a day or so... MallardTV (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it- archived some stuff too. MallardTV (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* @Hey man im josh, Giants2008, and PresN: I'm pinging the FLC Coords here because I've never opposed a nom before and I'm not quite sure the threshold for such. I feel like I have gotten into a WP:FIXLOOP here. I've asked 3 times that the nominator fixes unsourced passages, be consistent with citation formatting etc. and each time they fix one or two of the issues and ignore the rest. I've tried really hard to lay out the steps to fix these issues but it seems like I'm not getting very far. I want to be clear, I think this is an interesting list, and especially as a medical editor I want to see it pass, I'm just not sure if I should step away or oppose. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too great with refs and I really do want to get this passed. I apologize for wasting your time and I'll really work to get everything fixed before I bother you again. MallardTV (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to attempt a source review here. Starting with reliability;
@IntentionallyDense Looking at the older refs, including the ones you pointed out, I would personally not want to change them. They may be older, but they have all the same info as new sources. This is becuase insulin analogues do not change. Once they are released, people adjust to them, so they can never be modified. This is the reason they just keep making new analogues. These sources I'm using are sometimes from right when these analogues released, but nothing has changed since them. The analogue I use: aspart, has remained unchanged for 25 years now. So I do believe I have proper justification for any older refs I could find. MallardTV (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I may need to seek some opinions from WP:MED here, would it be okay if I posted on your behalf there? To my understanding, the reason why more recent publications are important, is because even if you are right about nothing haven changed, readers won't know that unless they commit a significant amount of time to researching that. For example if I say "smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer" and cite a 1987 study showing that, the readers only know that in 1987 we had evidence of that. However if I write the same thing and cite a 2024 study, readers know that this statement is backed up by the most recent literature we have available. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats's true, and feel free to post on my behalf. However, the article really only details the mechanism of action, which doesn't need anything to back it up since the original publications were what detailed it to start, and many newer works are based from. @IntentionallyDense MallardTV (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to check for recent pubs for a couple of the older sources and then if nothing comes up I'm just going to WP:AGF regarding the rest of the sources. I checked a couple older refs and can confirm that at least in those there was no better substitute so I will be moving on with this source review.
Starting with formatting, ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked. 54 and 55 both say "accessed on xyz" while the rest of your refs say retrieved on. I would change this for consistency. ref 78 should have the journal wikilinked. Ref 152 should be changed so that there isnt just a url in it. Ref 123 journal should be wikilinked.
Next I'm going to make sure that all WP:Biomedical information is sourced appropriately.
It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is borderline and could do with a better source.
For your 4th paragraph in the lead I would just move the ciation to the end of the para to reduce the amount of citations in the lead.
The first two paragraphs under Insulin lispro contain biomedical info and should have a MEDRS source. Same with the first 2 paragraphs under Insulin aspart, the first paragraph of Insulin glulisine, the first 2 paragraphs of Insulin detemir, first 2 paragraphs of Insulin glargine, first 2 paras of Insulin degludec/liraglutide, and the first paragraph under Veterinary insulins.
Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours is biomedical info as well.
For the second paragraph in NPH insulin I would move some of the refs so you aren't citing the same sources after each sentence.
nsulin icodec is a medication used to enhance glycemic control in individuals with diabetes is biomedical info.
I would reduce the amount of refs in the first para of Insulin icodec as well.
The first 2 paragraphs of General mixtures are borderline and would benefit from some MEDRS sources.
is a fixed-dose combination medication that combines insulin glargine and lixisenatide for the treatment of diabetes. The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. is biomedical info.
I know that's a lot of stuff but hopefully you can find some MEDRS sources for this. Let me know if you have questions. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Good morning! I think I found suitable refs for all of the biomedical info. I also fixed everything you pointed out to me. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ref 35, 38, 93, 119, and 185 all have the accessed instead of retrieved which should be fixed. ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked.
I still think you could find a better source for It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis
I made an edit to show you what I meant about reducing the amount of refs.
Often, a longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is also required. and It is generally considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding needs a MEDRS source. Same with A longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is generally needed as well. and Intravenous injections may be used for severe hyperglycemia and Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours and all the info about safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and Other serious side effects may include low blood potassium levels and he most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose)
Overall it's looking better but still needs some fixes. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Did the best I cound for the accessed thing, but web citations seem to use retrieved no matter what I do. Everything else should be in order though. MallardTV Talk to me! 22:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to respond to this. The accessed thing may be a template thing so sorry on my part for that. For It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is there not a MEDRS source which clearly states insulin analogs are used for these disorders? I'm hoping we can find one source to replace the 4 we have since many of them are not MEDRS. I can help look for some as well. This source [16] verifies the diabetes claims, this source [17] verifies the gestational diabetes claim, and this source [18] verifies the ketoacidosis claim. Other than that, I believe the only other source that should be changed is the The most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense I was sick with the flue but I'm back and I think I fixed it all! MallardTV Talk to me! 13:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a source spot check. I may break it up a bit cause there is a lot of sources to check.
  • ref 2 [19] is verified
  • Ref 9 [20] verifies For example, Rezvoglar and Basaglar are both formulations of insulin glargine. However, Rezvoglar contains insulin glargine-aglr, while Basaglar is simply insulin glargine but does not verify the general statement of Although two brands may contain the same insulin analog, they may contain different formulations of that analog, meaning they are not biosimilar, and therefore not interchangeable.
  • ref 16 is verified [21] however it may be relevant to mention they are being discontinued
  • ref 24 [22] verified
  • ref 32 [23] isn't loading for me but this may be a regional issue
  • ref 40 [24] is verified
  • For ref 55 [25] remove BETTER as the author.
  • ref 49 [26] verified
  • ref 56 [27] verified
  • ref 65 [28] verified
  • ref 72 [29] verified
  • Not able to find Insulin glargine on the WHO list [30] could you point me to which page it's on?
  • ref 88 [31] verified
  • Not seeing the preperation methods in ref 97 [32].
Going to take a break there for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the wrong year for the WHO list, it was included in 2021. Oops. I think I fixed thye other stuff too MallardTV Talk to me! 00:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 31 [33] still isn't loading for me. An archive link would be appropriate here.
  • Ref 54 [34] should have Better removed as the author
  • Add year, publisher, and retrived date for [35]
  • Could you copy and paste from the website where you found the preperation methods for [36]?
  • ref 105 [37] verified
  • Remove smithsonion as author for ref 112 [38]
  • Having a hard time verifying Similarly to the modern brands of NPH and regular insulin, which are still sold, buffered regular insulins would be marketed under the name of the rest of the insulins in a brand's product line, followed by the letters BR from ref 113 [39] could you copy and paste from the source how it is supported?
  • ref 120 [40] verified
  • something weird seems to be going on with ref 122
  • Could you copy and paste from ref 128 [41] where it verifies the manufacturer and the vial part
  • refs 136 and 137 do not verify that the drugs are not approved for human use in the US just that they were discontunued
  • ref 144 [42] verified although I'm not sure why the American society is in the ref
  • ref 152 [43] is verified
I'm going to take another break for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the broken link for 32, I can't archive it archive site isnt loading for me rn but it should work. 35: "Liprolog medicines are available as solutions or suspensions for injection in vials, cartridges or prefilled pens." The BR name thing is simply supported by the fact that all BR insulins were sold under other broduct lines with BR replacing the normal letter. I agree ref 122 was messed up so I replaced it. For 128: Manufactured byPfizer Ltd, but it seems to be a really old generic and I can't find any other mention of it so I think it's best to get rid of it. I need to add a ref to include the withdrawn approval I'll do that now. I think that fixes everything this round @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 23:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the BR thing is that the source does not make the differentiation between buffered and non buffered insulin (at least from what I could find) so BR could technically stand for anything.
  • ref 160 [44] verified
  • ref 167 [45] verified
  • ref 177 [46] verified
  • ref 184 [47] verifed
  • ref 192 [48] verified
  • ref 200 [49] verified
That concludes my source spot check. Get back to me regarding the BR insulin and then I'll take another look at formatting and such. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'll take it out since nothing truly sources it. MallardTV Talk to me! 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to ping @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 00:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should hopefully be my last round of feedback.
  • Are all four citations needed for the row "Insuman" in the table?
  • Same with "Ryzodeg"
  • nsulin glargine/lixisenatide was approved for medical use in the United States... move citation to the end of the paragraph instead of having two identical citations in the para.
  • Insulin analogs developed for human use after Lente insulin's discontinuation have not yet been same as above
  • Not 100% sure here but I believe you could remove the brackets in the title for ref 2 [50]
  • Wikilink journal for ref 6 (using and instead of &)
  • Formatting across citations should be consistent, use a cite template for ref 10
  • ref 16, remove company name from title
  • wikilink journal for ref 20
  • remove www from ref 32
  • capitilize O for ref 36
  • use ref template for ref 36
  • same with ref 49 and 50 and 84 and 94 and 190 and 170
  • ref 171 has the FDA listed twice in the ref
  • wikilink journal for ref 156
  • wikilink journal in ref 147
  • same with ref 145
  • remove practo name from title in 128 and 129
  • wikilink journal for ref 113 (journal has since been renamed)
  • expand and put ref 97 and 98 into cite templates. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down those citations for Insuman and Ryzodeg. Fixed everything else, thank you! @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 12:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is passed but I didn't evaluate enough of the prose to give a decision on that. I would also say that the references may benefit from someone a bit more experience with citation formatting, taking a quick look at them. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Thank you so much! Will you be doing a prose review or should I ask around? Thanks, MallardTV Talk to me! 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave some broad suggestions above, I'd suggest you take those and apply them to the entire article. Other than that I will not be doing a prose review. However if there are questions specifically related to WP:MEDMOS or medical stuff, feel free to tag me and I'll try my best to help. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you so much for the source review! With my obvious inexperience with citations, it helped a whole lot. Thanks, @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 12:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based on this version of the article.

  • Link to Drugs.com in references that use it as the publisher instead of the unlinked or www.drugs.com (consistency in the works/website/publisher field is important)
  • Ref 2 – Change website to United States National Library of Medicine
  • Refs 8, 29, 39, 62, 65, 74, 78, 107 – Expand the reference from just the title of the PDF
  • Refs 9, 28, 30, 73, 75, 106 – Link to European Medicines Agency as the website. Remove "| European Medicines Agency (EMA)" from the title
  • Refs 16, 67, 79 – Change publisher to/wikilink American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
  • Refs 19, 43, 111, 113 – Link to DailyMed as the website
  • Refs 20, 46, 52, 82 – It should just be "Food and Drug Administration", not "U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", to match the target page. It should also consistently be wikilinked.
  • Ref 40 – properly expand the reference from a URL
  • Refs 45, 81, 112, 114 – Remove (EMA) from the website field
  • Ref 71 – Remove " - WebMB" from the title
  • Ref 71 – Use WebMD as the website
  • Ref 88 – Link to Medical News Today as the website
  • Ref 98 – Wikilink European Medicines Agency
  • Ref 100 – Link to Health Canada as the website
  • Ref 111 – Remove "DailyMed - " from the title
  • Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|February 2025}} template to the top of the article under the short description

That's what I've got to start. I can look it over for consistency in references again once there's been more consistency in the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks man! The dates thing is really weird! I standardized then all but for some reason it reverted. MallardTV (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I fixed everything you pointed out! MallardTV (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More feedback, without going through it with a fine toothed comb just yet:
  • Drugs.com is still not linked everywhere it could be in the references (I think you just missed this point)
  • Remove "www." from the website name of references
  • Ref 2 – Link to United States National Library of Medicine
  • Ref 6, 26, 61, 88 – Change website to "Lilly Medical"
  • Ref 29 – Add publisher and access date
  • Ref 8 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 12 – Wikilink Afrezza
  • Ref 13 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
  • Ref 24 – Lets Wikilink to Admelog
  • Ref 25 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
  • Ref 39 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 40 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 47 – Add |via=[[Google Patents]] to the reference
  • Ref 53 – Link to MannKind Corporation
  • Ref 53 – Add date
  • Ref 54 – Link to British National Formulary
  • Ref 57 – List to WHO Model List of Essential Medicines
  • Ref 60 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 62 – Link to Medscape
  • Ref 63 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 66 – Link to GoodRx
  • Ref 70 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 103 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 105 – Match target, use Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism instead of using "&"
I've been focusing strictly on reference formatting, not verifying references for what it's worth. I'm also sure there's more I haven't caught, but I figured I found enough with this pass to provide for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinking to the insulin trade names is not something I think should be done, wince they are all redirects to the page for the insulin analogs and provide no info on the brands themselves. MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since^ MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the list and fixed everything you've pinted out to me @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing Drugs.com linked everywhere yet @MallardTV. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I just went into source and fixed all 6 unlinked. MallardTV (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per our discussion, it appears there are still some consistency issues with reference formatting. You also did not remove the "www." from website names in references. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I got rid of the www, what are the other issues? MallardTV (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere I think you should ask for a review to be performed by someone more familiar with WP:MEDRS. I typically look for consistent formatting styles and reliability of various sources, but this isn't one where I'd be comfortable doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll ask around. I know it's probably annoying that I ask this, but I assume due to your unfamiliarity with MEDRS that you are unable to give a support. Is that the case? Either way the comments you have left are a huge help, thank you. @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I'll need to review this again, but a brief review yielded the following sporadic comments:

  • The reference column should be centered.
  • If only 2 of the 13ish rows in the 'General mixtures' mixtures have images, why note move the two to the text directly above and simply eliminate the column?
  • "The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea" - errant parenthesis
  • "approved for medical use in the United States in November 2016, and in the European Union in January 2017." - Does the exact month matter to the reader?
  • Can you define/explain "Ultralong-acting" in its section?
  • "All Insulin analogues" - capitalization issue.
  • "The three companies which produce the most insulin are Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. These three corporations" - Bit repetitive. Rephrase for flow.
  • "It is also of note that many insulin analogues are available unbranded" --> "Many insulin analogues are available unbranded" for WP:CONCISION

This list may require a visit to the WP:GOCE. ~ HAL333 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 A few things. I don't know how to make the columns centered... I don't think there is enough space in the general mixtures section to put the images out of the table without making it cluttered. The months matters a bit becuase with just the years it could just as easily be a 18 month gap instead of 2. Thanks MallardTV Talk to me! 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This nomination has been open for 3.5 months with only a single support. It did get a source review from someone with MEDRS experience, but it has gone way over time for what we'd normally allow for a nomination. If there's not review movement soon, I'm going to have to close it anyway. @HAL333: did the nominator address your concerns? --PresN 14:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Feel free to renominate once all issues are addressed. --PresN 21:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_commercially_available_insulins/archive1&oldid=1294983548"