Talk:Collaborative practice agreement/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Review
Hello. I'll happily review this article. My review will consist of 2 parts. On the first one, I will go over any grammatical/spelling mistakes. On the second part, I will go over each source individually and check that the text is supported by them. Should not take me more than a few days. Please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. Thanks for writing this and I look forward to reviewing it. Big thanks, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Part 1
Hi, here is part one of my review. Overall, this is a pretty interesting article. I added a few citation needed tags to claims that needed a source, and did some copyediting along the way. I'm a bit worried about the scope (i.e. whole section on Alaska, but no mention of most states besides their approval years, and expanding the Physician perspective section). The lead claim that "CPAs have become the subject of intense debate within the pharmacy and medical professions" seems to fall short when you read the opinion of a few pharmacists/healthcare experts in the section. Could this be expanded too? MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about the Alaksa point; it seems like the article will likely be incomplete without a mention to every state. I also agree that the "intensity" of the debate is not supported by the lack of sources of the article. I'll see if I can expand that as well. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   01:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Below are some of the issues that need immediate attention. Part 2 will follow later:


 * Intro
 * - Why is this in bold? From my understanding, bold should only be done when it is the name of the article or an alternative name.
 * Agreed, per MOS:NOBOLD. Thank you for pointing that out.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   01:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – From my understanding the CDTM term should not be bold since it is not the name of the article or an alternative name for it (as opposed to the others above).
 * Agreed, as above.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   01:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to remove the references from the lead per WP:LEADCITE? This is highly encouraged for GA and FAs because the lead is asked to be written with greater level of generality than the body, and adding references will only limit that to what that specific sources says (as opposed to it reading like a Summary style). Just make sure that when you remove the sources, that all the info in the intro is cited elsewhere in the sections below.
 * Thank you for citing that. I've moved the cited content below, and reworded the lead. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * History
 * – I would change to “According to healthcare researcher Karen E. Koch, …” as the phrase with PharmD might come across as an appeal to authority. I also feel it gives more background on the person, as opposed to just a mention. I verified the source and did confirm; click DISCLOSURED for this info.
 * That's a great point. Edited. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – should this guy be redlinked per WP:REDLINK? A quick Google search pulled thousands of results, and at least a few on the main page seem to have passed the notability threshold (beyond just a mention). I will leave it up to you.
 * I repeated your Google search, and I couldn't agree more. Edited.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – I would italicize the why per MOS:EMPHASIS. Make sure to use the appropriate template.
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – though I do not entirely agree with this policy, italics in quotations are considered unnecessary per WP:BADEMPHASIS. Also, please elaborate on the “later” (when?) and add a source at the end of the sentence.
 * I have reworded the sentence in question, changing its claim to better reflect the source. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – Add (CPA) since it is used in the following paragraph.
 * No longer applicable. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – change to Washington, D.C.
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – link Federal government of the United States
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – is the official name House Bill 494? If so, please spell it out.
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – Is committee referring to this? If so, I would link it to that specific section. Let me know if you do not know how to do that.
 * I believe so, though it is unclear which committee HB494 died in. I agree with your recommendation; I've added a wikilink to that section.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – Did the source just skip Delaware? Wow. Have you been able to find info on this?
 * Haha, yes--they did. The updated 2015 article shades in Delaware on a map of states that allow CPAs, citing an image supposedly taken from information in the 2003 article that never mentions Delaware. However, besides this shading, I have no evidence that Delaware allows CPAs. An article from 2006 claims that Delaware does not allow CPAs; hence, my uncertainty. I tried calling Delaware's Board of Pharmacy, but my call wasn't returned. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Effects on outcomes
 * – when? See WP:RECENT
 * I removed the time-dependent nature of the claim. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Variation by state
 * – Why does Alaska have its own section, but other states do not? I am a bit worried that this might constitute WP:UNDUE weight
 * That's a fair point. It was merely the first of an intention to expand the article to cover every other state. Do you think I should take that section offline until a 50-state compendium can be amassed?― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Pharmacy advocacy
 * - I added a CN needed tag for this.
 * This is a summary statement for the section. Do you still think it needs a citation? ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – I will leave it up to you, but do you think this needs to be redlink per WP:REDLINK?
 * I do. Thank you! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   03:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Praise
 * – use acronym since you added it in the previous section.
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – interested
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Criticism
 * – would be great to know what they came back with, at least in a short sentence. This is not a requirement, however.
 * Great idea! Done. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – remove “what was seen” to avoid someone tagging it was “According to whom?”
 * edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Part 2

 * I didn't find any of the sources problematic, and the few sources I checked for verification did turn out positive. I wanted to ask about this source in particular. I noticed there are several pages about CPA; have you been able to access them? I tried doing it through my work laptop and it asked me for a subscription, but now I'm doing it on my personal laptop and I was able to access the other 7 pages. Seems like there is some useful information there that you can use it expand the article more. Any thoughts on this?
 * I've used Koch's article in the article, though I suppose there may be more yet to glean from it. I think it's worth a second look. (: ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 11 needs a page verification for the year cited; I added a new URL that virtually has the same info as the downloadable doc that was there before.
 * I'm not sure if this is what you were asking for, but I've cited the statement before the cited use of Source 11 (this ref, at the time of your review), showing the proper year.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Address the [Citation needed] tags, as mentioned in Part 1
 * Addressed. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

CP133 Reviews
Hi all, I (along with a few others) have been assigned to review the recent edits to this page made by my classmates, though I see that much of the review has already been completed.

As a group, we think that the quality of edits are informative and give insight on the impact of pharmacists and pharmacy services on health care. The addition of legal provisions for North Carolina is helpful in making the state-by-state collaborative practice agreement variation chart more complete. Thank you for expanding on it.Meng1359 (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Response to edits
 * Thank you to everyone for their review regarding the article! It's nice to see that there have been so many eyes on this article to make sure it's up to standard. Thank you for your suggestions, your feedback, and for your collaboration. We will take your suggestions regarding state abbreviations into consideration and edit accordingly. Miss k8 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… I did not find any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. The majority of edits I am able to see are in small pieces preventing plagiarism. I traced larger chunks of information back to the sources and they seem to be summarized rather than copied or paraphrased. Additionally, there is no material that I can see is under copyright on this page.Varshieee (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify… The statements regarding pharmacist impacts in psychiatric and oncology care utilized 3 primary sources. These were primary sources because it consisted of a randomized control trial, an analysis of a specific medical center's pharmacist-managed clinic implementation, and an analysis of another ambulatory psychiatric pharmacist consultation log specific to a medical center. Under the North Carolina edits, I found that these sources were good examples of verifiable secondary sources that are freely accessible - the North Carolina General Assembly, as well as the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy FAQ and Pharmacy Rule Book.Meng1359 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify… The edits for the most part are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. There are some capitalization mistakes - mostly state abbreviations in the table. Otherwise, the article's formatting looks great! L-Ion-S (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)...

'''Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...''' After reading the article a few times and understanding that a collaborative practice agreement (CPA) is specifically for pharmacists and physicians to help manage drug therapies, I do believe the draft submission offers an unbiased perspective. The fact that the physician perspective portion is included, especially helps with removing any doubt of bias. Keep up the good work! Vg661 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to review from 10/26/17
Thank you so much for your detailed review of this page. We truly appreciate it and will be using some of the comments to guide further edits over the next couple of months. We'll be incorporating some suggested edits into the appropriate sections as well. Hopefully when you revisit the page in a month or so, you'll find the page more updated. Miss k8 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from reviewer
and : Thanks to both for working on this! I think the article is ripe for promotion. I'm open to extending the hold timeline over the suggested 7-day limit (I understand real life gets in the way sometimes, so let me know how long you would need an extension and we can meet here again). The only things that need updates now are the states and the "Physician perspective" section.

I won't require all of the states, but at least a dozen of them should be fine (I saw you added Arizona. Thank you for that!). I'm not sure how different each state is, but I'm assuming some states have very similar CPA policies, so you can describe those together if you wish (just a suggestion, that way we aren't adding ~50 sections). If you think that this article might get too long, I guess we can come back here and decide if some state can have their own article (that won't be a requirement for GA, but just wanted to make it clear that there are other options in case the 50-state expansion doesn't work). You can also summarize the states' policies and have them under a single section, that way you don't go into too much detail about each state and get off track from main topic. If you choose this route, you probably don't need to write every single state—perhaps only the relevant ones or those that have significant variations. Let me know what you plan to do!

The "Physician perspective" section is somewhat more complicated, but make sure to describe disputes without engaging in them like you've done so far, per WP:RGA. Thanks again! Cheers, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW, just thought of something. You can probably add the states in an infobox, similar to what the article Legal drinking age has for countries. You can arrangement however you want, add a few columns of your choice, and you'll have a quick/good source of information! MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 03:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! An extension would be welcomed news. I imagine that at least another week or so would be helpful for adding more state data, though I'll see what I can get done tomorrow.


 * I like the Legal drinking age article analogy you referenced! I think I'll look into sorting them into something like that. ✅ Done. 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of the Physician perspective WP:NPOV concern, do you think it may be useful to split "Pharmacist advocacy" akin? Though I'm unsure if I'll be able to find any pharmacists speaking ill of the matter, I haven't looked.
 * Thank you again for your ongoing review! I appreciate your patience with me as I learn how this process works. (: ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   04:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I'm extremely satisfied with the work done so far. I will promote the article to GA status! Thanks to everyone for the collaborative work. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 13:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for reviewing the article and providing helpful feedback along the way! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   00:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your additions to the page! It was very rewarding to see the process of improving and growing this article. Miss k8 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your detailed review of the article and for the promotion to GA status! Miss k8 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)