Template:Did you know nominations/Finafloxacin

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Finafloxacin

(

)

Finafloxacin's chemical structure in 2D format.

... that Xtoro likes dropping acid and giving bad trips to its enemies? Source: "The compound exhibits optimal efficacy in slightly acidic environments (pH 5.0–6.0), under which other fluoroquinolones lose activity." (McKeage, Kate (2015). "Finafloxacin: First Global Approval". Drugs. 75: 687–693. doi:10.1007/s40265-015-0384-z.)
- ALT1:... that bacteria shouldn't drop acid while taking finafloxacin? Source: "The compound exhibits optimal efficacy in slightly acidic environments (pH 5.0–6.0), under which other fluoroquinolones lose activity." (McKeage, Kate (2015). "Finafloxacin: First Global Approval". Drugs. 75: 687–693. doi:10.1007/s40265-015-0384-z.)
- ALT2:... that finafloxacin is a new fluoroquinolone antibiotic that works best with acid? Source: "The compound exhibits optimal efficacy in slightly acidic environments (pH 5.0–6.0), under which other fluoroquinolones lose activity." (McKeage, Kate (2015). "Finafloxacin: First Global Approval". Drugs. 75: 687–693. doi:10.1007/s40265-015-0384-z.)

ALT3:... that finafloxacin is a new treatment for swimmer's ear?
Comment: ALT0-1 are more silly. ALT2 is more serious. All are referencing the same thing. I still have <5 DYK credits.

5x expanded by Biochemistry&Love (talk). Self-nominated at 01:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - Too much jargon such as unexplained phrases like "otic suspension"; "pregnancy category C"; "systemic circulation".

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - I'm not content with the focus on acid in the draft hooks. This seems too weak and there are weasel words about this in the article, "some have speculated".
Interesting: - The proposed hooks seem to be trying too hard. Why not just say that it's a new treatment for swimmer's ear?

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Apart from the points made above, it's a shame there isn't a picture. Why not use the chemical diagram from the infobox? Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew D.: Thank you kindly for your review! I've tried to clean up some of the jargon in the article and wikified some things. Thank you for pointing out the weasel wording; I've specified the referenced source in that sentence. I've added a picture as well, as requested! (: In terms of the interesting portion, I suppose it is a bit forced, haha. I mean, it's a fact that it works best under acidic conditions, but what's disputed is whether that will translate to clinical efficacy dealing with infections in acidic places (e.g. stomach). From a pharmacological stand point, I think the most notable thing about finafloxacin is its difference from other fluoroquinolones, but perhaps something about swimmer's ear would be accessible to a larger audience. I've added an ALT3. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For ALT3, while I appreciate the attempt at humor in the other hooks, ALT3 seems more straightforward. Article was long enough at time of nomination, it is well-sourced, the issues above appear to have been resolved, no apparent copyvios, hook is cited, and you're all set on the QPQ side. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)