:First of all: I just read my post at WT:PHARM again, and realised that it could be taken as a personal offence. At the time I wrote it, I didn't know that large portions of the article are the work of one author; I just thought it turned like that for lack of copyediting from experiences writers. I apologise if you took my post as an offence against you, it certainly wasn't meant like that. 
 :That being said, to address your concerns about my drug articles: They are mainly articles about drugs in Phase II or III, so there is little information available about clinical questions like adverse effects. If Phase II results are bad, a drug doesn't enter Phase III anyway, and if it's good, the interesting information is still to come when Phase III results are published. Furthermore, many of these drugs will probably never be marketed, so it is way to much work to read all the literature about each drug and write everything down in the article. So, my strategy is to write incomplete articles (see WP:Stub). I certainly think that they should be expanded as soon as Phase III results are out, or at least when a drug goes to market. If not, then it is probably enough to add a sentence on the lines of "Development of this drug was terminated because of...". 
 :If you read my drug stubs again, you will notice that I carefully avoided any positive information as well. It's just neutral facts like chemistry, planned indication, mechanism, manufacturer. On the contrary, I tend to remove sentences like "This drug is likely to revolutionize the treatment of...". So I don't think the articles are unduly positive about their respective subjects.