User talk:S.zayec/sandbox

The changes made to the page on Fluoxetine are all being done in the section entitled "History"; in this section we are adding a more detailed summary of the history of Sarafem and its use to treat PMDD. Since there is already a brief statement on Sarafem in the history summary, we are adding our edits to the section right there after the statement.

The sentence we follow with our history of Sarafem is as follows "Prozac was rebranded for the treatment of PMDD in an attempt to stem the post-patent decrease in Eli Lilly's sales of fluoxetine." This sentence itself we are editing to define what PMDD is, so instead it reads "Prozac was rebranded for the treatment of PMDD—premenstrual dysphoric disorder—in an attempt to stem the post-patent decrease in Eli Lilly's sales of fluoxetine."

Following this, there is a brief explanation of what PMDD is and its presence in the medical community. We then explain how Prozac was rebranded into Sarafem, causing the entire pharmaceutical industry to follow suit with their variations of Prozac. After this we talk about the marketing and media prescience pf Sarafem and the controversy it sparked. Such an influence caused a lot of response and in our last paragraph we explain the feminist response, as well as the significance it has on the feminist movement.

In our paragraphs we used quite a few resources in which case we will add to the body of resources. Our resources are as follows:

Paula J. Caplan (2004) The Debate About PMDD and Sarafem, Women & Therapy, 27:3-4, 55-67, DOI: 10.1300/J015v27n03_05

Caplan, Paula J. "'Premenstrual Mental Illness': The Truth About Sarafem." The Network News May 2001: 1. General OneFile. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

Davi Johnson (2004) Selling Sarafem: Priestly and Bardic Discourses in the Construction of Premenstrual Syndrome, Women's Studies in Communication, 27:3, 330-351, DOI: 10.1080/07491409.2004.10162479

"Sarafem." Formulary July 2002: 335. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Mar. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.zayec (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

S.zayec (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall really interesting edit as well as an interesting topic to choose. So far what I've liked most is that you have chosen a topic that is both relevant to social discussions/debates and medical discussion/debates. Here's a breakdown of your edit based on Professor Nagorny's feedback suggestions:

A) Feasibility:

-Are the edits relevant to the article that is being edited? This was the first area of concern I had when editing your project. Overall I believe they are relevant to the topic and discussion of Fluoxetine but it sometimes seems out of place when you begin to talk about the new topic of enlighten sexism. I understand that it is relevant to your discussion of the commercial of Sarafem so I wouldn't suggest to edit it out but possibly reference it more lightly or provide a link to the page of enlighten sexism (if it exists of course). This way if people became interested in that discussion they could read more about that with the click of a link. I also agree that the "History" heading is the best possible spot for the edit. I am thinking maybe to make that whole section flow a little better with the new edit you should also include the history of the marketing tactics they used when the drug was known as Prozac? Just a suggestion.

- Are the edits relevant to the mission of the class? Yes, I provides a different type of discussion about pharmaceuticals and the medical industry (hence the title of the class, "22 ways to think about drugs"). I also like the tie to relevant discussions of feminism often had in classes and subjects based more about humanities and social sciences. I found it very integrative and creative.

- Are the Proposed changes justified in your view? Yes, I think the proposed changes are justified and shed more light on Prozac when it was renamed to Sarafem (something I didn't actually know that happened so it's a justified edit to me).

- Are the literature sources relevant to the text/correct? There aren't any links up to your lit references but I am assuming you pulled this info both from scholarly articles and obviously the commercial you talk about within the edit.

B) Wiki Standards

- Does the article correspond to wiki standards in terms of language, content, bias, and sources? I would say yes. This is a tricky subject to talk about without raising conflict but I think you did a nice job with keeping it very casual.

C) Improvement - What would you suggest to improve this entry and make it less/more interesting to the reader?      I gave you a few suggestions about but overall I think the topic is interesting enough on its own and you also did a nice job of presenting it in an interesting manner. Like I said my biggest suggestion is just making sure that whole history section flows nicely with the new edit. In some contexts it could seem a little out of place.

Crlaud (talk)Courtney Laudick

Drug recall Peer Review- Instructor
1)	Content

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

No. Links were not provided.

D)	Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

It is not clear what section titles are going to be modified. History?

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

No

2)	Figures

A)	Are the figures original and of high quality?

No figures are provided.

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

N/A

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

3)	References

A)	Are the references complete?

No references were linked to the text. The other sandbox provides some references, but it is not clear which parts of the article are backed by the provided sources. Five (rather than four) references are required for the article.

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

Yes

4)	Overall Presentation

Overall, the proposed changes have merits. The group did produce three paragraphs of additions on the proposed topic. The points were deducted for not including Figures, links and not following the Wikipedia article format (with subsections and sections).

5)	Format and timing of submission

The group did not follow the Wikipedia article format. No hyperlinks to other terms (such as PMDD, PMS, etc.) or Wiki pages were provided. The Figure/Table/Schemes are absent and the links to the references should be inserted to text.

PN 02:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
As your peers have pointed out, your article needs some improvements before you can post it to the main space of Wikipedia. Here are a few suggestions.


 * 1) When you copied the texts from the original article, you should have copied it from the Edit Source box of the History section. That way, all the Wiki-syntax and references would have been maintained. Please let me know if you need more help with this.
 * 2) It appears that you are still not comfortable with the basic editing techniques. Please feel free to go back to the online training modules linked on our Course page on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Reference 1 and 2 you cited are the same. If you give the reference a RefName when you first cite it, you can reuse it at the second location. Check out the video tutorial on insert reference and make sure you watch it till the end.
 * 4) Since the three paragraph you added are related to treatment of PMDD, I'd suggest add a section heading "Controversies around Treatment of PMDD" and make it a sub-section of History. Remember to put "===" around it to make it a lower level heading than History section.
 * 5) The discussion you had seems to be related to the Culture and Society section too. You may want to consider which section makes more sense for you to add to when you complete the final draft.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Response
The review was very helpful in pointing out our need to balance between shedding a new light on Sarafem, which, in thinking about drugs in new ways, is the point of the class, but also not going too far off topic in the social feminist history of the drug, as the wikipedia page is, after all, under the Fluoxetine page. Responding to this, we cut out a little about enlightened feminism, as the peer response suggested, and edited some other sentences to try and remain more on topic. It was also an overall reminder of our need to always write from a neutral point of view due to the sensitive nature of our topic. We also added information about medical studies conducted about Sarafem to show the medical viewpoint on the effectiveness of Sarafem. The review also pointed out our lack of a figure, which we fixed by creating a pie chart about the statistics of women with PMDD, something we think relevant to the overall Wikipedia page, not just the history section. In addition to this we created hyperlinks of concepts and words that will lead to relevant wikipedia pages. A couple of sources were added and we also got rid of the multiple references and just re-used the same reference link in the article. Since we got rid of these duplicates we added two more journal articles to total to five resources. Lastly we added a main 'History' header as well as subtitles to organize the topics that were discussed in the section.

Additional Suggestions

 * 1) Please add a data source to your plot in the caption and the Wikimedia commons page where you uploaded it. That way, people would know if they should trust your data. See Picture Tutorial for details on how to change the caption and size/location of figures.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)