Talk:Pefloxacin

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pefloxacin.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

These edits are a major revision of this article as requested by the insertion of a rewrite tag last year. Additional work will be done to correct any inadvertent errors, citation errors, etc. Please post any comments on this talk page for discussion before editing this article.Davidtfull (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the before version and the after version, it looks much better. I haven't actually read it but on scanning it it sure is a heck of a lot better. Thanks for sorting this article out.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to post a thank you to all who have been watching the fluoroquinolone articles develop and for the time they have spent repairing spelling and grammar errors and the like. Much appreciated. We are working on all of the fluoroquinolone articles to bring them up to date and are following a similar format for all of them. Any suggestions would be appreciated and invite those who are helping to post such suggestions on the various quinolone talk pages for consideration. Again, thanks for your efforts here folks.Davidtfull (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trade names

It had been stated that: there is a long-standing saying in Wikipedia (it may even be codified somewhere) that "redirects are cheap". Therefore it had been suggested that: redirects for trade names are a more appropriate solution than in-article "laundry" lists, because 1) they avoid clutter in the article body, 2) they prevent issues such as an ever-growing list that may be "expanded" with inaccurate information and 3) they make it much easier for someone looking for a particular generic formulation of the drug to get to the actual article. Since this suggestion is both practical and logical I have removed the list of trade names and used redirects instead. As such someone searching Wikipedia using a brand name would simply be taken directly to the levaquin article.

I would now ask that editors not expand the trade name list, but create redirects instead. Those not familiar with this process may find the following article helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect

Davidtfull (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]