Talk:Icos/GA1

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

I'm starting a review of this article. I will work my way through it, but my first point concerns the lead. A fundamental principle of good writing is that the information of greatest importance should be the easiest to pick out, and the article lead doesn't obey that very well. The information of greatest importance is about Cialis, so that should be mentioned right at the start. Next most important, I think, is the dissolution of the company, so that should also be mentioned near the top. The long unreadable list of things the company worked on should be saved for the end of the lead, and ideally made more readable. Ideas on how to do this may occur to me as I go through the article. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article! I've rearranged the lead to highlight Cialis and the breakup of Icos. I agree the list could be friendlier, but there should be a summary of the diseases, and I can't think of a better way to do it. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

History

 * You should say a bit more about the founders. It took me five seconds to find info about George Rathmann using Google.  What was the plan they had when they founded the company?
 * I've added a little on the founders and their idea behind Icos; let me know if more is needed. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence about viruses will leave the reader wondering what viruses have to do with any of this.
 * I was also wondering about that, since none of the diseases listed has to do with viruses. I dug out an interview with Rathmann where he says the company never worked on viruses, and added a sentence on it. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having read through the source, I feel that the last sentence here is not adequate. According to the source, the reason the company had to be sold was that efforts to develop followup drugs to Cialis fell through, and there is a suggestion that that happened because of shortsighted leadership on the part of Paul Clark. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added partly before because of Paul Clark's leadership. If this doesn't address the issue, let me know how I could reword the sentence to be more accurate. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup
I'm satisified with your changes, and I've additional done a bit of copy-editing to several parts of the article. You should feel free to "change my changes" if you don't like them. There is only one section I'm unhappy with at this point:


 * Manufacturing I don't understand this paragraph, chiefly because I don't understand what the terms "lead antibody drug" and "lead monoclonal antibody candidate" mean. (The word "lead" is throwing me.)
 * Oh, "lead" means it's the drug furthest along in development, or the most promising experimental drug (as in leader, not the element). I've replaced all the "lead"s with synonyms. Shubinator (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Once this is fixed, I will pass the article. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'm passing the article. Nice job. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)