User talk:Sdewas/sandbox

Peer Review
(A) Content:

I'd just like to start off by saying how impressed I was with the additions you made to the page. Starting with the introduction, I like the inclusion of the chart about the price discrepancies of drugs in different countries, I would suggest though either deleting or elaborating on the sentence that reads "This does not indicate, however, that the United States is more interested in profits than other countries, but rather reflects the different processes countries use to determine the price of a drug." Only because looking at the chart alone, I don't think it provides any detail of the processes of drug pricing in different countries, it only shows the differences in the prices. As far as content length, I believe each section had an appropriate length. The only section that could use a little more length is the "Failed Drug" portion; maybe explain what constitutes a failed drug. All of the main terms seem to be appropriately linked to their respective pages and information does not seem to be repetitive/duplicated.

(b) Figures:

All the figures are relevant to the page and content; if possible I would enlarge the graph that portrays profit changes with patents. Its a bit small on the page and I think it is a good graphic that should be easily seen by readers. This graph is not an original image, but it does have necessary references to it to give credit to the original illustrator. The chemical structure of simvastatin is an original work, but the one of Lipitor does not seem to be.

(c) References:

There was a wide variety of references, including journal articles and news articles. All the news articles were from reputable sources such as Forbes and Time and were correctly linked to the information that was being referenced.

(d) Overall Presentation:

The overall presentation of the page was organized and well done. For the title of the section "Uniqueness and Patenting", I would suggest maybe entitling it simply "Patenting" as that is the main focus of the section. There are also some grammatical issues throughout the page and some word choice that does not accurately fit the context, such as "astronomical research". Also, there is some repetitive adjectives in sections that make the reading a bit less fluid. Just a simple read through and edits could fix these problems.

S.zayec (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Drug Pricing Factors reviewed by Morgan Groendyke (a) Content • Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts? Introductory section was not addressed by the edits, but it could have been improved. The current introductory section does not inform the reader of the following content. • Do the contents of each section justify its length? Some of the sections regarding research/development of drugs are too detailed about the processes of research. These sections should talk only about the factors that affect pricing, and they should try to trim down on data that would be more relevant on a page about drug development. The Benefits and Side Effects section seems large to contain information that is largely unrelated to pricing. • Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference? Many important terms are linked with the exception of a few drugs, pharmaceutical companies, etc. (i.e. AstraZeneca, FDA, Roche, etc,) • Are the highlighted examples appropriate? Yes, all of the currently linked terms are appropriate. • Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia? No, much of the content is additive to the current Wikipedia page. The information provided was very vague, but the editors did a good job of including every facet of drug pricing factors. Much of the current content includes snippets of the process, but the edits give the information more context.

(b) Figures • Are the figures original and of high quality? Yes, the two figures are high quality and original. The graph of pricing before and after patents is extremely important to the topic, and clearly shows the data. • Are the figures informative and add to the text? The figures are very informative. The clean layout of the numbers for the chart shows the exorbitant prices of the US compared to various other countries in a number of drugs. The graph showed the dramatic drop in drug prices after a patent runs out, and showed readers in a simple form how a patent increases prices. The graph linked well with their discussion of competitors versus demand versus pricing. • Are the substance and/or protein structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? Not applicable.

(c) References • Are the references complete? Yes, all information is referenced. • Are the references inclusive of non-journals sources? There was a good range of references from news articles and journals that were all credible.

(d) Overall Presentation • Provide a short summary of the entire content/figures/references, highlighting both what the group did well and well as what still needs to be improved.

The edits made were well researched and informative to the reader. The edits will make a considerable addition to the current page, but much of the current page could still use editing. The editors could have focused on revising the page’s current information rather than adding more. The opening section is vague and brief, and much of the current information has typos and other mistakes. The current page is disorganized and the information is not clearly presented. I like that the edits proposed talk more about the source of drug pricing in great detail rather than just saying that the prices are high in the US. The reference towards specific drugs gave the information context. The graph and data table used were both appropriate and informative. Some of the data on the process could be condensed in order to stay on topic, but the thoroughness of the data is good. The information they found was from credible sources and was always referenced.

MorganGroendyke (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)MorganGroendyke

= instructor comments =

1)	Content

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

N/A. Introduction already exists.

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

Yes. One note: The Drug Pricing Factors discussion ends with sentence “Here are some of these pricing strategies”; however, no discussion of the pricing strategies follows. Either remove it or provide some discussion of these strategies.

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

Mostly. Some terms such as FDA, Pfizer, etc. have Wikipedia pages.

D)	Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

Yes. For example, the authors did an excellent job on highlighting the price differences between Lipitor and Simvastatin.

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

No.

2)	Figures

A)	Are the figures original and of high quality?

Yes. The provided tables and figures are original and of high quality.

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

The Tables are very informative. The figures with chemical structures do not enhance understanding the material, and I would suggest removing them completely. Second Table (R&D section) should have the time span for the “Number of Drugs Approved” and “R&D Spending per Drug” columns.

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

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

Yes

4)	Overall Presentation

The authors did an excellent job in adding a section that describes factors affecting drug pricing. Altogether this is one of the best articles I have seen thus far. The only minor change I would like to suggest is adding some discussion on why drug prices vary from country to country (i.e. explain content in Table 1). At least, the fact that some countries (i.e. Canada) have a ceiling as far as the drug prices are concerned should be mentioned.

Response to peer edits
Thank you both for your advice and recommendations. After reading what you had both said and looking at Professor Nagorno's comments, we think that we should definitely proofread more to fix errors. You mentioned a place that said "astronomical research" but really it was talking about the astronomical R&D expenses (we will make that clearer). We think that sometimes when copy and paste is used in Wikipedia, there might be some errors associated with the process. We will definitely look at the Sandbox page and fix those (my partner's page is the main page with the entire article, so that should not be a problem there). Professor Nagorny seemed to think that the level of detail throughout was nice so we will not mess with that. It was also suggested that our title for one of our sections should be changed so we will do that on this page. We also plan on making sure nothing in our piece is vague by Wikipedia-linking more or even using more citations. As Professor Nagorno mentioned, we will definitely consider elaborating more on the price discrepancies between countries and their various drug pricing methods. As he also mentioned, the chemical structures did not enhance our edits so we are looking to remove them completely and possibly find other images that could enhance our work. Besides that, we will look into minor edits such as making the chart bigger and organizing our sections better. Thank you all for your recommendations, we appreciate it!

Sdewas (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Great work with adding this needed section for the article. Here are a few suggestions before you post it to the main space.


 * 1) Reference 11 and 12 are duplicated, please correct them as you did for previous repeated ones.
 * 2) The last figure you used is from a journal article and it's an open access one shared under CC license. So, you chose the right way to share it. However, I do want to mention that not all open access articles are shared under CC license. Please remember to check that before you use any media files in the future. Also, please add some caption to the figure and may be making it bigger. Please see this tutorial Picture tutorial for how to do it.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)