User talk:SettleGod/sandbox

Cannabidiol Peer Review 1
A) The introduction section of both the original Wikipedia article and your Sandbox edits are the same. I think that it would greatly improve the article if you were to put more background information and explanation for some of the terms necessary to understand Cannabidiol. What is a cannabinoid? What are some of the medicinal functions of the other cannabinoids? This section could also stand to benefit from some information on the history of development of the cannabidiol. How was it isolated? Why is it significant in camparison to other cannabinoids? Most of the sections have a significant and informative amount of details, however the "Industrial Hemp" section could stand to house some more information on why it is significant for the topic at hand. There are also a good amount of links to Wikipedia pages, though a few were unlinked. Terms that you might want to consider linking would be "chorea" and "Epidiolex." There are a few minor grammatical errors, including commas and spelling. I found one small typo in the "Pharmaceutical preparations section" -- "Epidiolex is an oil formulation of CBD extracted from the cannabis plant undergoing clinicaFl trials for refractory epilepsy syndromes." The last sentence in the Industrial Hemp section also needs to be fixed with regards to its citation. Otherwise, the content that you added was really good from a clarification standpoint.

B) The figures seem to be original and of high quality. The article might benefit from the addition of a figure that illustrates how the Cannabidiol compound differs from more commonly known cannabinoid compounds, like THC. The photo of the Cannabis sativa plant is interesting, as it displays how the compound exists in nature. The larger figure, though informative, could benefit from a little contextual information in the caption area.

C) The references are complete, detailed and varying in source type. They are inclusive of both journal and non-journal type sources.

D) What I can take from the group's edits are that they intended to put more clarification and substance into the article. Due to the fact that it was well outlined, but not extremely detailed, this was a great effort. The information that you added was helpful to non-chemists. The structure of the article is very heavy in the medicinal uses and how CBD is likely useful for many minor afflictions. There are not many figures, but they are mainly explicative of the chemical structure of the molecule. Like I said before, the article is lacking in background information on the history of the medicine. I would like to see some details on when it was found, why it is significant in comparison to other cannabinoids and where other medicines failed in order for scientists to find it.

ClaireHillman (talk)

Cannabidiol Peer Review 2
(Michael Keating)

As a non-expert myself, I felt that the introduction to this topic was easy to understand and comprehensible. Although the introduction is short, it does a nice job of introducing the topic very broadly. The rest of the page goes on to describe a variety of cannabinoid related topics, so the broad style is suitable. The information added under the Psychotropic effect heading was of optimal length. I thought that the addition of Schizophrenia listed examples really added credibility to the page as a whole because it added another research study citation. I think a little more information could be added after the introduction of Huntington’s disease as an example. I liked that after the introduction of Schizophrenia a brief description of how CBD actually interacted with the body was given. A similar discussion could be added with respect to Huntington’s disease. This would give readers a way to compare/contrast the different ways that CBD actually works. Do all of the benefits come from the same interaction with the body? Are the elevated levels of anandamide that improve psychotic symptoms of patients also responsible for the reduction in chorea severity in patients with Huntington’s disease? This discussion could increase the depth of the listed CBD benefits. These highlighted examples are appropriate and extremely relevant. Mental health has been talked about a lot more in recent years. The stigma associated with mental health, while still there, has been reduced considerably. As a result, medications and supplements that pose potential benefits in the field of psychiatry and psychology, in this case CBD, are highly sought after. This content has been generated from original sources and is not duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia.

I was unable to identify any figures that were added to this Wikipedia page. According to the guidelines for this project, I would recommend adding 2-3 figures to the page. I suggest looking more into the reported effects of CBD use in patients with Schizophrenia or Huntington’s disease. Some sort of chart, graph, or table that compares the symptoms of patients taking CBD with the symptoms of patients not taking CBD (a control) would be a great way to reinforce the content that was added under the Psychotropic effect heading. Another potential figure addition could come under the Chemistry heading. A structure of Olivetol, p-mentha-2,8-dien-1-ol, and boron trifluoride could also be beneficial to readers. If not figures, a link to the p-mentha-2,8-dien-1-ol could be included similar to the way that links were included for Olivetol and boron trifluoride.

The references are complete and inclusive of non-journal sources. After figures are added to the page it is important that proper references/citations are included as well. The information under the Psychotropic effect heading was properly cited and included links to relevant information e.g. The information added under the Legal Status heading was properly cited and included links to relevant information e.g. Carly’s Law.

Overall I thought that the additions made to this page were a big improvement. The inclusion of two medical conditions that can be treated by CBD under the Psychotropic effect heading was responsible for the bulk of the improvement. Using citations of research studies was an effective way of informing the reader of the benefits, while maintaining a neutral status. I liked that the information was presented in a way that was not trying to persuade me one way or the other that CBD is good or bad. Research studies were cited and readers can decide for themselves if they deem the studies credible. The lack of figures was an issue, but something that can easily be fixed. The references were complete and information was cited properly. This was a successful Wikipedia page edit and contributed relevant, publicly available information.

umich1111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
The article's introduction was already present before we commenced editing, and it included a concise background explanation of the drug and its common comparison to THC. To give all the information requested in the first peer review would overwhelm the common Wikipedia user/take the article off-topic, so we will maintain our previous decision to leave the introduction unchanged. "Epidiolex" was already mentioned in the article before we began editing, though it was not linked, so we already added its wiki link to the "Legality" section. We added a link to chorea as advised. We expanded upon the "CBD-Enhanced Cannabis" section, adding more information about economic motivations that derive from the differences in effect between CBD and THC. The typo in the word "clinical" was not part of our added prose, though we fixed it.

The figures already present in the article depicted the connectivity of CBD and a table representing several isomers. Our edits did not previously contain any new figures, so we added a flow chart representing the different biosynthesis reactions that give rise to both THC and CBD, respectively. The prose added to the "Biosynthesis" section described the contents of this image, but the visual aid strengthens the article section.

Our new edits necessitated the addition of one or two more references, though those we already used were accurate and acceptable. Some of the prose already included in the article was missing a citation, saying, "citation needed" at the end of the sentence. We replaced this with a citation we used elsewhere in the article with matching information.

Overall, we needed to touch up some content, fix a few typos, add a comprehensibility-boosting figure to aid the common Wikipedia user, and include some more background information on the drug. To not get bogged down in the history, we kept most of our edits contained to the realm of chemistry and the medicinal applications of CBD.

SettleGod (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)SettleGod SettleGod (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)MadKamin

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Good additions! Here are a few suggestions before you post your edits to the main space.


 * 1) Please note that there are some new edits occurred to the existing article after you started your edits in the Sandbox. Please make sure that you don't simply overwrite those changes when you post your additions.
 * 2) I noticed that Jytdog gave you some suggestions on the Talk page of the existing article. Please try to respond to this person briefly when you post your edits.
 * 3) The image you uploaded is a screenshot of a copyrighted journal. You cannot use Fair use clause to share it since it's open to public. In fact, it's already tagged by Wikimeida commons and will probably get deleted. Here is what I suggest you do. Draw the scheme yourself in ChemDraw, upload that figure as your own work with Creative Commons license, and cite the original article in the caption. Since the chemical reaction itself is data and cannot be copyrighted, you won't violates anyone's copyright that way. If you need help with uploading images and size/change location of the images, please see the video tutorial and this Picture tutorial.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)