User talk:Noahkuhlmann/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1
Although there were no changes to the original content made to the introductory section on the 6- APB page, this section is straight forward and accessible to non-experts. It clearly defines what kind of drug 6- APB is and how it functions compared to MDA which is a more familiar compound. The content is organized into 5 sections which appropriately places the the information provided into descriptive subsets. The expansion of 2 sections those being, "reactions", "effects", and "addition of confirmed cases" are good additions. The reactions section could be expanded on because it is short and not very in depth. Adding a description of what the drug looks like and what other chemical characteristics it has such as solubility or molecular weight would be useful to add. Content wise, the effect seciton is descriptive however you could consider adding links to other wiki pages for the side effects you listed. The confirmed cases section was a good example to include content wise, but you could add a wiki page link for the drug "diazepam" mentioned in this section. I do notice that in your sandbox page compared to the original page, no figure/table is provided. You should include the figure of the structure of 6- APB in your final post. The 2 references that you used and added are reliable sources because one is from an online library database and the other is an official government website.

Overall, the content that was added was related and useful to the topic. However, I would work on trying to find more information and content to add to the page to increase the length of the sections. Try to find more information on the drug for the reaction sections such as its characteristics in the lab or relationship with other drugs. Also add the web links to the side effects you listed in the effects section. You could also do more research and add content in the effects section stating if the drug has any drug-drug interactions with other drugs. The confirmed cases section was a good one to add but you could add other confirmed cases to the one you have now. You state that it's one of the most well documented cases but what about the other ones? Also consider adding the figure/table. The references you added were complete and reliable and referenced in the right sections.

Maiqiang (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

= instructor feedback =

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 02:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review 1
We have added a description of what the drug looks like, and some of its chemical properties. Also added hyperlinks to everything. As far as the confirmed cases thing goes, there really are no other cases that are reputably documented. Therefore, it would be impossible to include another case. All of the other reports are anecdotal and from drug forums, which we can't exactly cite. We just didn't want to say "no other reputable reports exist" because one will be published eventually. We also expanded the reactions section. Thank you for your feedback, it is much appreciated.

Noahkuhlmann (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

= Suggestions from ChemLibrarian =

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


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Please make sure you do not overwrite the ChemBox when you post your edits to the page.
 * 3) 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.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)