User talk:ClaireHillman/sandbox

Eplerenone Peer Review 1

Your introductory section is very accessible to non-experts. It provides a good introduction to the topic without overwhelming the reader with jargon only a professional would understand. Each section appears to be an appropriate length for its purpose. In general, there is enough information to make it understandable but not so much that the passage feels long-winded. Most of the key terms are linked. I would recommend linking FDA, potassium, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. However, some of these terms are linked in other parts of the passage. I would suggest linking the first term or just linking it every time it’s mentioned. Also, I was a bit confused about the meaning of “epithelial.” If that term does not have a Wikipedia link, it might need a little more explanation. I could not find any duplicative Wikipedia content; this appears to be the only page for it. Both figures appear to be original and high quality. However, the first graph was a little difficult to understand. I would suggest adding an explanation of what the graph is stating to the section where you included it. I think the comparison between eplerenone and spironolactone is valuable, but the value is lost when the graph is hard to read. The chemical structures were also a helpful addition to this article; it was interesting to be able to compare them visually. I have not taken any college chemistry courses, but cross-referencing the structures led me to believe that they were constructed correctly. If you could find a way to arrange them horizontally instead of vertically, that might make the page look a little cleaner. If you can’t, then I think it’s fine the way it is! All of your references appear to be complete apart from “doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu164 Check |doi= value (help). Missing or empty |title= (help).” When I clicked on this source, the page could not be found. Some of your sources seemed to be from fairly mainstream websites, but the use of these sources seemed appropriate for the type of information taken from them. The developer of the drug, for example, does not need to come from a medical journal. With this topic, I think it was valuable to have a links to studies in combination with information from secondary sources. Overall, I thought your page was very well organized and accessible. It both was informative and concise. Your description of the function of the drug was very clearly stated. The original article mentioned some of the specific adverse sexual side effects, and I thought the sentence you added after that about the chemical mechanisms that cause those side effects was an important addition. Apart from the one source I mentioned earlier, your sources appear to be credible. One of the questions I had while reading this article was “why is eplerenone more expensive?” Perhaps you could address that in your future revisions. My other recommendation is that you proofread your wording to make sure it sounds as scholarly and professional as possible. For example, “but still keep potassium” could be changed to “while maintaining potassium levels.” Also, I think it would be more appropriate to say that “studies suggest” that it effectively reduces blood pressure instead of just stating that it does. In my opinion, this makes you sound more credible. Just something to think about! Great job! Courtneyjs (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Eplerenone Peer Review 1 Response

Thank you for your detailed and descriptive review to our edits. It was extremely helpful how well you outlined the review and the expressive and simple way in which you phrased all of your suggestions. We plan on including more of a variety of linked pages within our Wikipedia edits, to improve to contextual background and evidence with which we explained our topic. We do believe that some of the terms you mentioned were already linked in earlier passages, but we will try to make them more conspicuous in the future edits. We created our own graph for the numerical differences in eplerenone and spironolactone, and therefore value your input on how to make it more easily accessible and readable. It is based on evidence from a study on how the drugs compare in their effectiveness in fighting heart failure and hypertension, so we will make that study more obvious and plan to detail some more of the evidence from that study. Our references page is lengthy and could therefore be minimized slightly, upon your suggestion. We found it more important to be thorough with our citations, taking a "safe rather than sorry" approach. We intend to investigate and add a sentence of two as to why eplerenone is more expensive than spironolactone. Lastly, we really appreciated your input on our phrasing, as it is important to us that we sound professional. Thank you for your excellent feedback!

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

It's great that you are integrating your edits into the original article. Here are a few suggestions before you post it to the main space.

1. Please note that there have been new edits posted to the original article in April and that may be after you started your edits in your sandbox. Please be careful not to delete those new edits when you post yours.
2. 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 pose strong disagreement.
3. Please make sure that you didn't just delete any original content without a careful revising, especially because this article is being actively edited by others too.
4. Please cite the source for your table. And you need some texts for that section besides the table.
5. The location and size of the figure could use some change. Please see this tutorial Wikipedia:Picture tutorialon how to do it.
6. There are lots of issues with your reference formatting. Please watch the video tutorial on this page and correct the following problems: Giving titles and Retrieved Date for Webpages; Using right journal article format for the articles you cite on Wiley site; solving the duplicated citation issue with RefNames as described at the end of the video tutorial above. Also, pay attention to the URL you use for citing references. Some of them has the proxy.lib.umich.edu part in the URL, which is specific to our U-M access. You do not want to do that. Cite a more general URL, even if it's only to the abstract not the fulltext.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)