User talk:Courtneyjs/sandbox

=Ambrx Peer Review by Allan Chen=

Both of you have decided to tackle creating a new Wikipedia page on Ambrx, which upon further investigation, has never been written before on Wikipedia. The idea is novel and the writing meets the scholarly style of Wikipedia. It is clear that the foundations you have established creating this Wikipedia page will undoubtedly contribute to a future gold star on Wikipedia. Overall, you have done a good job meeting the requirements of Content, Figures, References, and Overall Presentation. However, there are finer points within these categories that could use improvement.

Your first introductory paragraph provided a holistic overview of the pharmaceutical company Ambrx. Both of you also touched on some of the sections you mention later on. For the most part, the introductory paragraph was mainly accessible for non-experts as most of the scientific terms you referenced are common knowledge. However, I do feel that the accessibility of the introductory paragraph could be improved if you Wikipedia-linked more terms. For instance, you Wikipedia-linked the term “biosynthesis”. You could improve on accessibility and capture a wider array of audiences if you Wikipedia-linked other terms like “genetic manipulation” or “amino acids”.

I also believe your introductory paragraph could be improved by briefly summarizing more of the sections you cover later on such as “Current Corporate Governance” and “Pharmaceutical Products”. You touch briefly on some of these sections but an effective introductory paragraph is one that concisely summarizes all the sections.

Most of the sections on this page justify the length you have written. In some cases, however, I feel that you should have combined some sections together. For instance, the sections covering “Partnerships and Collaborations” and “Acquisition Status” could be merged into the section on “Company History”.

As mentioned earlier, you could definitely improve linking important terms/concepts to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference. For instance, the section on “Partnerships and Collaborations” mentioning other pharmaceutical companies like Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp should be linked. Additionally, the section on “Company History” mentioning Ambrx founders such as Peter Schultz should also be Wikipedia-linked as well.

Figures were very much lacking on the page so much of the criteria surrounding the use of figures could not be evaluated. Your one figure on "PEGylated interferon beta-1a" seemed a little bit unnecessary as it could have been written out simply with a sentence. I do not feel that this figure was original and of high quality. I also did not feel that the figure added much to the text. I think the use of a figure could be better applied to the section on “Company History” to better organize some of the officer positions. Creating a figure based off that data would really organize it better.

You should also include the protein structure (if available) of "PEGylated interferon beta-1a" and other chemical structures to further supplement the writing. For instance, a chemical structure of the Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 protein could have been inserted to enhance the section on “Patented Technology”. Your reference list at the end was quite extensive and showed a wide array of scholarly sources, journals, and other primary sources. Your article sources ranged from a variety of non-jounal sources such as Ambrx.com and Xconomy. I did notice that many of the references on the bottom of the page had error messages such as “Check date values in: |access-date=”.

The use of references, for the most part, were also extensively complete. Citations were inserted at all the right locations, albeit a few. For example, the first paragraph of the section titled “Research and Development Process” did not have any citations whatsoever.

Content wise, you have shown an encompassing effort to summarize Ambrx’s patented protein medicinal chemistry technologies. Both of you have the general gist of things done, but minor improvements could really make this page stand out. Both of you do an outstanding job providing a holistic overview and covering main points. The article was written in a scholarly style and showed depth and breadth of the pharmaceutical company Ambrx. However, integrating the two sections covering “Partnerships and Collaborations” and “Acquisition Status” together into the section on “Company History” would further improve the article. Also, you should think about adding in more citations/references to further bolster your article. In addition, I think you should re-think your approach to the use of a figure by possibly creating a new one that better organizes the company board structure. Other than that, you are on the right track to an amazing article!

Allanmc0913 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Response to First Peer Review
Thank you for your review! I like the idea of adding a table to better organize the company history section. I also think that combining some of the sections is a good suggestion. I also agree that there needs to be more links to clarify certain terms we used. This was very helpful feedback. Courtneyjs (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

=Ambrx Peer Review by Logan Light=

Feasibility
Your article has thoroughly convinced me on the importance of discussing Ambrx and giving it a place on Wikipedia, as well as its relevance in terms of broader pharmaceutical impacts. I find most of the sources to be complete and relevant, though I found that when using some of Ambrx's information that they provide, it comes off slightly biased in their favor. Additionally, I found some sections to be either less important or containing information that I was not particularly interested in when compared to the rest of the article, as described below.

Possible Improvements

 * Introduction: I found this to be somewhat inaccessible as I'm not sure what protein therapeutics or bio-conjugates are and what using an expanded genetic code means. Additionally, what is Protein Medicinal Chemistry and also be careful as it is trademarked. Rather than saying "their interest", I suggest "Ambrx develops protein based...". Also, I'm not sure what increasing available proteins means or how that is beneficial. Generally, I suggest expanding on definitions and linking to other articles when possible.
 * Company History: I would have liked to know a little more about how the company was founded and grown, rather than the structure of Ambrx. Also, I found Current Corporate Governance to have information very similar to this section.
 * Research and Development Process: This is also somewhat inaccessible, though I think hyperlinking could be a good solution to this
 * Patented Technology: If possible, I suggest using quotes instead of paraphrasing for terms that they created and defined. I'm also left wondering how they will optimize and what their optimization entails. I'm somewhat confused on the parenthesis around ™. In terms of the language used, I found some words to be odd, for example "novel" amino acid. Finally, I'd like to see some more details on exactly what ReCODE does and how it specifically does it. Also, "yeast and mammalian" what?
 * Pharmaceutical Products: I worry that your table is too small. As another idea, potentially using their logo as a visual? Also, when you say "Because Ambrx is..." it comes off as you rationalizing why they haven't gotten the approval instead of what has actually happened.
 * Acquisition Status: I'm not quite sure what this is discussing. My perception is that this says Ambrx has been purchased by a Chinese group, but I don't know what else this entails.
 * Partnerships and Collaborations: I would love to have a little bit more detail on the what and why of this section. Additionally, is there a reason that BMS was specifically mentioned due to importance?

Overall, I found your article to have a strong foundation and to definitely fit WikiStandards and show importance. When compared to external information, I found your to be accurate and highlighting important points. I look forward to reading the final product! Ljlight (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Response to Second Peer Review
Thank you for your review! I agree that hyperlinking would help increase accessibility of the article. I'm glad you pointed out the slightly biased language; I did not notice it until now. I also really liked your idea of adding their logo to the page. Since the page is about their company, it makes sense to have an image of the brand included in the introduction section. I also agree that some of the sections are a little short and underdeveloped and could potentially be combined. Thanks again, this was very helpful feedback!

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Great work with creating this new article. A few suggestions here before you move it to the main space.


 * 1) Your peers advice on biased language is great. Please modify based on their suggestions.
 * 2) You added the logo to the page, which I think should be OK. But you might need to change the copyright status to Public Domain with trade mark warning as they do for the Amgen and Pfizer logos. See Amgen logo and Pfizer logo.
 * 3) You have a few errors with the reference. You need to fix the format of the access date to "2016-03-17". And some of your URLs has a number in front of it like "3)" or "6)". It makes the URL not working. Please correct them too. I have corrected reference 6 for you. Please correct the rest.
 * 4) You also have duplicated references like 2-4 and 10-11. you can fix them by using RefNames. Watch the last part of the video tutorial here and you will know how to do it.
 * 5) If you feel like to, adding a InfoBox to the page would be a plus. Take a look at the Amgen and Pfizer page. I am referring to the box on the right top. you just need to put that template on the top of the page and fill it with your info, which you have most of them anyway. The Template:Infobox company page should be helpful.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)