Topic Peer Review 1 by Aditya Vemulapati

I am not familiar with the drug 6-APB, and overall I found this article to be informative and fairly clear. Beginning with the introduction section, a couple sentences were added as edits to the original page. In these, the appearance of the drug was described as being a powder or pellet. This was nice because it helps the reader visualize the topic, helping the reader understand (thereby adhering to the Wikipedia goals). However, a subsequent sentence states the price of the drug in 2012. This information might be inappropriate for two reasons: 1) it is slightly outdated and 2) it is somewhat irrelevant to the focus of the article (perhaps include it elsewhere in the article if kept).

In the Pharmacology section, I thought the edit which talked about phenyl ring-substituted benzofurans and the 2-APB isomer were relevant tangents which served to highlight the pharmacological activity and motivation for drug manufacturing of 6-APB for recreational use. On a similar note, the editor adds to the Effects section by saying how a derivative has different psychological effects on users.

The new citations which the editor uses are credible and relevant. For instance, articles from journals like "Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental" and "Drug Testing and Analysis" are used to provide backing for statements.

For future changes, I would strongly suggest the editor to look into long-term edits under the Effects section, instead of solely focusing on the short-term primary effects of 6-APB. This would provide a better picture of the drug in the same way that holistic views of tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs are available.

I noticed that in the Law section, the original article provided a large amount of information regarding the classifications of the drug in different countries, and penalties for possessing it. While it is pertinent to the meaning of the article as a whole, I think it would be more easily comprehensible if the information were placed in a table. By using all available data, the classification and legal penalties could be placed in different columns aligned with the respective country in each row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avemulap (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avemulap (talk) Avemulap

Response to Peer Comments

Thank you for your critiques and comments, they were much appreciated. I took out the pricing information for the reasons you listed as I also agree they were slightly irrelevant and did not contribute to the article as a whole. Unfortunately, as the case with many drugs, there is no long-term effect research that has been done on 6-APB so I could not supplement the effects section with more research. A table for law was not idealistic as it was difficult to insert the needed citations, we instead followed the traditional format many sites use such as the MDMA wiki site. Thanks again for your help!

SretenF (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

instructor comments

1) Content

A) Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

N/A (present in the original article)

B) Do the contents of each section justify its length?

No. We expect you to add more than just few sentences for each section (preferably new sections), and altogether it should comprise 3 paragraphs.

C) Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further references?

The added sentences do not contain hyperlinks for the existing Wikipedia pages such as pages on David Nichols, MDMA, 6-APB, etc.

D) Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

There is one highlighted example in “Confirmed Cases” section. However, it does not go along with the other sections or the material that authors add. It is not clear what is meant by “confirmed case”. Is it confirmed case of side-effects? Psychiatric effects? Abuse? Some clarification is required

E) Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

No. However, the added content is very scars and there are sentences directly copied from the references (for example, the following sentences are very close to their source and will most likely be rejected by Wikipedia editors):

“Phenyl ring substituted (2-aminopropyl)benzofurans are structurally similar to methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) with the dioxole moiety replaced by a furan ring.”

“The 2-APB isomer has been reported be a monamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) inhibitor. [5] Considering that the phenyl ring substituted isomers have been reported to be ‘preferred’ classes of the compounds as regards pharmacological activity and that they are structurally similar to MDA, it is most likely that manufacturers would synthesize them for sale to recreational drugs users. [5]”

2) Figures

A) Are the figures original and of high quality?

N/A

B) Are the figures informative and add to the text?

According to the log, the posted figure was removed due to the fact that it represented commercial packaging. The authors should find a way to post a Figure/Scheme/Table that complies with the Wikipedia rules.

C) Are the substance and/or protein structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? N/A

3) References

A) Are the references complete?

Yes. However, please note that only 3 references were provided. We look for 5 references for the final article.

B) Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes.

4) Overall Presentation

As of now, the proposed changes to the article should be significantly reworked and are not good the way they are. I strongly urge the authors to add new sections rather than copy/paste the additional sentences from the sources to the existing sections. Please note that some of such additions do not actually improve understanding of the content and require additional clarification.

5) Format and timing of submission

While the work was submitted in time, the authors did not follow the requested format. The authors should work as a group and provide the final product (not individual edits). The issues with formatting, Schemes/Figures/Tables and required number of sources/references should be addressed.

PN 02:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Response To Dr. Nagorny's Comments

Thank you for your review and suggested edits, I hope we revised to to a more acceptable level. We edited the introductory to include a few more informatory pieces about 6-APB to help better lay a foundation for understanding. We additionally hyperlinked every word or phrase that may be ambiguous for the novice reader in order to further ease the level of reading in many areas. As for figures we added a table to chart the reagent tests as well as an image of the 'paper' chemistry synthesis of 6-APB. We revamped the Pharmacology system with a Pharmacokinetics and a Metabolism section to broaden the Pharmacology information. The reactions section was also completely redone with added information on 4 other reagents, a chart was also supplemented. We included a synthesis section that further explains the chemical basis of 6-APB for those interested in that aspect, as this is an unscheduled drug we decided the level of explanation would not be problematic with wiki rules. Highlighted Cases was renamed to Case of Abuse. The effects section had multiple additions in order to get a better understanding of the effects of the drug. Both of our edits are now present in both of our sandboxes as a united edit to fix the formatting issue. Multiple references were added and exceed the 5 required. Duplicative info that you suggested be reworded was looked at and rephrased in order to prevent rejection from other Wikipedia users. Thank you again for your comments and edits!

SretenF (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Great work with incorporating you edits and improving the article. A few suggestions here before you post to the main space.

The Reference section has a few issues. Please add titles to web pages or reports you are citing. For dynamic sources like web pages, please add the Access Date or Retrieved time. There are a couple of duplicated reference too. Please watch the video tutorial on this page and make sure yo u watch till the end to see how to handle it with RefNames. Please let me know if you need further help with this.
Please make sure you do not overwrite the ChemBox when you post your edits to the page.
The synthesis figure you used seems to be a screen shot from a government publication Microgram Journal. I didn't find any copyright statement on their site and their Author Guideline. It may be safe to assume it's a public domain work as other government documents. However, to be safe, I would suggest you to re-draw the reaction scheme in ChemDraw and still cite the original source. That way, you don't run into any risks of violating the copyright since chemical reactions itself is not copyrightable. Plus, it can be better resolution too. Also, please add a citation to the caption of the figure too. I know you cited the source when you upload the figure but it's a good practice to cite it in the caption too.

If you'd like to change the location and size of the figure, see this tutorial Wikipedia:Picture tutorial ChemLibrarian (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ChemLibrarian

Thanks for your suggestions! I apologize for the late reply but we will try to incorporate your edits. I see the problems with the references as they are not standardly formatted and missing titles, as well as duplicated as you said. I will try to use ChemDraw to redraw the reaction scheme and paste the citation as well to ensure good practice. Thanks again for your help, and for a great class!

SretenF (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]