User talk:Umich1111/sandbox

Importance of Stereochemistry in Pharmaceuticals Peer Review 1
This group did an excellent job in terms of organization. Before their edits, the information contained within the existing article on the stereochemistry of pharmaceuticals covered only the broad concept of enantiopurity, and listed specific examples of racemic/enantiopure pharmaceuticals. The group added three paragraphs under three new headings: importance, criteria, and patenting. Throughout the prose comprising each of the three, the group did a great job staying focused on topic.

First, this group's page is missing what the existing article was missing: an explanation for the common Wikipedia user as to what it means for something to have an enantiomer, or a diastereomer, or any stereochemistry, for that matter--it's surprising the words "optical activity" don't appear anywhere in either this group's or the existing article. There is an existing Wikipedia page for chemical stereoselectivity (here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoselectivity)-- This group might consider linking to this somewhere in the "Importance" section.

In addition, the "Importance" section has a fair amount of prose and not too many references. For example, the second sentence should probably have a reference that indicates an experiment in which chemists struggled to isolate a single stereoisomer of their desired compound. Definitely do not forget to replace the "link about separating enantiomers" in parentheses with an actual link. The third-to-last sentence might be followed by a reference, and even some examples of pharmaceuticals that are safely marketed as racemic mixtures. The second-to-last sentence, on the other hand, may be factually incorrect: "Being a racemic mixture of enantiomers does not put the consumer is any sort of danger." Is this true of Thalidomide? Doesn't one stereoisomer cause horrible birth defects as well as prevent morning sickness? The paragraph flows nicely, though it could be shortened a little, and contain a few more references.

The "Criteria" paragraph is mostly concerned with the FDA's definition of enantiopurity and the rules/regulations concerning drug development. As a result, the only reference really needed is the one the group has already included, though it could be tagged one more time after the first sentence or two. There is a typo after the word "extensions," where an "o" should be an "or." "In vivo" and "in vitro" might be linked to their Wikipedia pages, the former's link listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vivo.

Last, the "Patenting" paragraph also contains a reference to an FDA-affiliated source, this one purposed to explain standard patenting protocols in the United States. It also contains the only non-FDA-affiliated reference in the article, a website containing information on generic drugs. The group might include the Wikipedia link for generic drugs, listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug. The group inserted some images representing the chemical structures of some of the examples listed, including thalidomide, ethambutol, and ketamine, but the sources from which they derive are not included.

This group is off to a very good start and would benefit from checking existing and including additional sources, using cleaner prose, and inserting more links to existing Wikipedia pages in general.

SettleGod (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)SettleGod

Importance of Stereochemistry in Pharmaceuticals Peer Review 2
This group did a great job of expanding on the topic of enantiopurity. Adding three new topics of "importance," "criteria," and "patenting" were a great way to go deeper on an important topic, and keep the information relevant. The titles also fit the paragraphs well and are short and to the point. I do think that it's important for the user to include what exactly stereochemistry is and give a brief explanation of what an enantiomer and diastereomer is, two things that are very crucial to this article. The content of the paragraphs is very easily understood and i think the descriptions are written simply enough for anyone to understand. They also did a good job of making sure they were unbiased in their writing. The sections are a good length and straight to the point. I think it is important that the user go back and link some of the more important content to their article pages so that others can use the links as further reference. This is not really done at all throughout the article. The user should also make sure to cite their sources more frequently in the article because there are large sections of writing with no sources at all. I would also make sure to read it over once more, there was an error in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the "criteria" section, where only an "o" was typed. Overall, I thought their additions were very unique and different from other articles found on wikipedia. The images of some of the specific structures that were added are a nice addition. They expand the idea of the article and make the concept much easier to understand. However, there are no source cited for these images. The image quality is also really good. Their references seem like good sources. Like I said previously, just make sure to cite more frequently throughout the article, there are huge sections of text with no citations. I think this is a good first draft to the article. The group would probably benefit from making their sentences a little bit more precise. They should also make sure to cite more of their sources. They very rarely state where the information they give is coming from. I think they should also go through the article again and link important topics to other wikipedia pages so that future readers have the opportunity to have a better understanding of the stereochemistry in pharmaceuticals. Madkamin (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)madkamin

Importance of Stereochemistry in Pharmaceuticals Peer Review 1
Content- -The introduction would be difficult to comprehend for non-experts. For example, not once in the first couple of sentences is the general location of where the target receptors for the drug are located or where in the body the drug is working. -This line "One enantiomer of a drug may have a desired beneficial effect while the other may cause serious and undesired side effects, or sometimes even beneficial but entirely different effects" is confusing to read, may want to consider rephrasing. -The contents justify it's length, however more could certainly be added. -Terms are appropriately linked most of the time. -The highlighted examples seem appropriate.

Figures- -There were no figures present in the article. May want to consider adding a figure to better illustrate the drugs chemical compound.

References- -The references were cited properly and appear to be in good form. -There are only three references, may want to look into more sources.

Overall Presentation- -The chart and bulleted examples in the Examples section are well done and provide a lot of examples. The references look to be well done and properly formatted. Overall, the article is relatively easy to read. That said, it is not complete. The intro section is the most glaring hole. I suggest giving general references of where the target receptors are (ie, the brain, the liver, etc.) and perhaps mention a few examples of the drug in the intro, just to help a non-expert understand the information. A figure or two would also be helpful.

Sklarjo (talk)sklarjoSklarjo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Thank you all for your input, we found all of the suggestions to be extremely helpful while deciding what changes to make for our final submission. One of the things that we found most helpful was the feedback regarding our Patenting section. We completely overlooked the fact that patenting of enantiopure compounds was left out of this section. This is cause for confusion when the whole topic of the page itself is related to enantiopure drugs, and not so much drugs in general. This is a section that we plan to do a lot of work on. We plan to incorporate information from the following journal 'https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-technology-law-review/online/darrow-patentability.pdf' This journal contains a lot of great information related to patentability of chiral compounds. Additionally, the lack of references in our original draft was an issue. By using this journal as a source of information for the patenting section, we will also add a much needed reference to the page. Another common theme that we saw in your reviews was the lack of references/citations for the image files added to the page. All of these image files were created by us using the ChemDraw Professional 15.0 program. We drew all of these structures, so we thought that we technically owned the image and did not need to include any citation. If we are wrong and there is another way to reference/cite these images we will be happy to do so. We are also looking for more sources to add to make it to the number of required references listed on the rubric. If we can cite our ChemDraw files as references/citations that would really help fulfill this requirement.

In regards to the "Importance" section, we will definitely incorporate more references and facts to back up the statements. We will also shorten it a bit to make it concise. For the "Criteria" section, we will fix the typos and tag the reference again to make it clear. Lastly, in the "Patenting" paragraph, we will use information from other Wikipedia sites to solidify our references, since all we have currently is the FDA-affiliated source. This is a point that we saw made by multiple peer reviewers. We will work to make the content more basic and easier to understand where applicable.

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Here are a few suggestions before you move it to the main space.


 * 1) As mentioned by your peers, it is not a good practice that the Importance paragraph does not have any references. Please revise as suggested.
 * 2) You will need to link more to other Wikipedia articles using the " " syntax as pointed out by your peers too.
 * 3) Patenting section needs a re-write as you mentioned.
 * 4) You can adjust the figure location and sizes as mentioned in this tutorial Picture tutorial.  Making them in the same line may look better.
 * 5) I see that you did not post on the Talk page of the original article to mention that you are students and would be working on the article as described in the Task Details document, Task 5-4. So, people who are working on this article do not know what you have been doing. When you post your edits, they may be surprised and can propose strong disagreement.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)