User talk:Ngreifer/sandbox
Hello, my name is Samath Dewasurendra and I am reviewing your article addendum for the Chem 290 class.
With regards to the actual content of the addition, I agreed wholeheartedly with what was being said. The points you made were fantastic. However, I am concerned about the relevance of what you have added to the entire article. The original article was very informative biologically and the history section talked more of the actual formation and initial business of the drug itself rather than about feminist response. What I would suggest is that you move what you added about feminism to the Society and Culture section, where a culture or group's reaction might be a little more appropriate. Here, I think what you have written would fit much better. You could add a subsection called "Feminist response" for example and highlight what you said and maybe go even deeper. On a separate note, I think you should also add links to other Wikipedia pages for important concepts. For example, I think you could add links for terms like DSM and important researchers like Paula Caplan and Renay Tannar.
There weren't any figures for this addition, but given the topic you have chosen, that should be just fine. However, maybe you could add an image of one of the researchers.
When it comes to your references, I think they could be a little more diverse. You have journal sources, which is great and also primary sources. While this is great for getting valid information, sometimes Wikipedia does not like to see all the sources come as primary sources. What I suggest would be getting more secondary sources, maybe some other websites that talk about the issue (if the websites are reliable of course). Otherwise, the sources you have are very good and informative, you could just use a bit more diversity in them (also more sources wouldn't hurt either).
Overall, I think what you have added is very informative and unique, given the page that it is on, and is also appropriate (I think it would fit better with the new section idea I laid out above). What you said about feminist response was very interesting and informative. There aren't any figures but that should not be a huge concern with the topic. Lastly, I think your sources could be a little bit more diverse and more could be used. Please remember to put links and citations to the addendum (even in the sandbox, because people might look here)!
Good luck on the final drafts! Samath Dewasurendra Sdewas (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Peer Review=
[edit]Overall really interesting edit as well as an interesting topic to choose. So far what I've liked most is that you have chosen a topic that is both relevant to social discussions/debates and medical discussion/debates. Here's a breakdown of your edit based on Professor Nagorny's feedback suggestions:
A) Feasibility:
-Are the edits relevant to the article that is being edited?
This was the first area of concern I had when editing your project. Overall I believe they are relevant to the topic and discussion of Fluoxetine but it sometimes seems out of place when you begin to talk about the new topic of enlighten sexism. I understand that it is relevant to your discussion of the commercial of Sarafem so I wouldn't suggest to edit it out but possibly reference it more lightly or provide a link to the page of enlighten sexism (if it exists of course). This way if people became interested in that discussion they could read more about that with the click of a link. I also agree that the "History" heading is the best possible spot for the edit. I am thinking maybe to make that whole section flow a little better with the new edit you should also include the history of the marketing tactics they used when the drug was known as Prozac? Just a suggestion.
- Are the edits relevant to the mission of the class?
Yes, I provides a different type of discussion about pharmaceuticals and the medical industry (hence the title of the class, "22 ways to think about drugs"). I also like the tie to relevant discussions of feminism often had in classes and subjects based more about humanities and social sciences. I found it very integrative and creative.
- Are the Proposed changes justified in your view?
Yes, I think the proposed changes are justified and shed more light on Prozac when it was renamed to Sarafem (something I didn't actually know that happened so it's a justified edit to me).
- Are the literature sources relevant to the text/correct?
There aren't any links up to your lit references but I am assuming you pulled this info both from scholarly articles and obviously the commercial you talk about within the edit.
B) Wiki Standards
- Does the article correspond to wiki standards in terms of language, content, bias, and sources?
I would say yes. This is a tricky subject to talk about without raising conflict but I think you did a nice job with keeping it very casual.
C) Improvement - What would you suggest to improve this entry and make it less/more interesting to the reader?
I gave you a few suggestions about but overall I think the topic is interesting enough on its own and you also did a nice job of presenting it in an interesting manner. Like I said my biggest suggestion is just making sure that whole history section flows nicely with the new edit. In some contexts it could seem a little out of place.
Drug recall Peer Review- Instructor
[edit]1) Content
A) Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?
Yes.
B) Do the contents of each section justify its length?
Yes.
C) Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further references?
No. Links were not provided.
D) Are the highlighted examples appropriate?
It is not clear what section titles are going to be modified. History?
E) Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?
No
2) Figures
A) Are the figures original and of high quality?
No figures are provided.
B) Are the figures informative and add to the text?
N/A
C) Are the substance and/or protein structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? N/A
3) References
A) Are the references complete?
No references were linked to the text. The other sandbox provides some references, but it is not clear which parts of the article are backed by the provided sources. Five (rather than four) references are required for the article.
B) Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?
Yes
4) Overall Presentation
Overall, the proposed changes have merits. The group did produce three paragraphs of additions on the proposed topic. The points were deducted for not including Figures, links and not following the Wikipedia article format (with subsections and sections).
5) Format and timing of submission
The group did not follow the Wikipedia article format. No hyperlinks to other terms (such as PMDD, PMS, etc.) or Wiki pages were provided. The Figure/Table/Schemes are absent and the links to the references should be inserted to text.
PN 02:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)