User talk:Crlaud/sandbox

(a) Content

The original page for the drug Aripipazole Lauroxil is very limited in its information available to the public. There is one, very short paragraph consisting of only three sentences, so there was plenty to add when approaching this Wiki page. The student does a good job throughout the entire project of addressing this issue, but seems to have left the introductory section as is. I think that this is satisfactory, but there may have been potential to add more information to this introduction.

All information consisting in the sections is of strong value. I did not feel as if there was any unnecessary information here; however I once again think there could be more added, as there was no information on the page before. The sections on medical uses, drug interactions and overdosing were the best and most detailed sections.

I am not sure whether it is because I am looking at the document in draft form, however I do not believe there are any linked medical pages on this updated Wikipedia page.

There are strong examples used however, as the user describes proper uses for the drug, as well as how to adjust the dose based off specific inhibitors.

There is no duplicate content between the pages. The student uses all original information found on other websites, adding to the limited information that was originally provided on Wikipedia.

(b) Figures

There are no evident figures that I can see on this student’s Wikipedia page.

(c) References

The websites that were used are provided as hyperlinks located at the bottom of the page, however they are not linked to specific information or made as footnotes within the content of the text.

(d) Overall presentation

Overall this student does a good job in adding important drug information and textual explanation of the drug effects. The sections on Pharmacology, potential side effects, dosage methods and medical uses of Ariplprazole Lauroxil are well done. However, the page lacks tables, figures and references, as well as having an empty section labeled “Discontinuation” that is left with no information. This is a very good start and signifies significant improvement from the original Wikipedia page, however there still is some work to be done to make the page feel more complete.

Response to Review

First off, thank you for editing our page. It is very much appreciated, especially with your detailed suggestions.

(a) Content

Overall I agree on the content that is within the text. All the information is drawn from significant sources and summarized in a more understandable way but there are still major edits I believe could be done as well. The dosage section will soon be created into a figure/table to make the dosage information condensed and a little more readable. We are currently working on a few edits for a table to choose the best way to present that information. The medical uses section could also be expanded to explain more about each individual illness the drug treats. Our biggest set back with content is just a lack of sources since the drug is still so new. Discontinuation may also end up being deleted as we cannot seem to find enough evidence and sources to create good content for that section. 

(b) There were no figures included because we were not aware that they were necessary to the project, I thought they were only necessary if the page did not have a figure but the original already has the chemical structure. Our goal is to place a chart of dosage as the supplemental figure since there are not many pictures of this new drug that are accessible for public domain.

(c) References need to be updated to actual citations which I do agree with. Those edits will surely be found in our final draft.

(d) Overall Presentation We tried to follow a similar structure of the page to that of this drugs sister page, Abilify. We need to make a few edits to the length of the page as stated above as well as relevant links to certain terms.

I have taken a few moments to incorporate some of these changes but most of them are more suitable for the final edit. Once again thank you so much for your suggestions, for the most part I agreed with all the page improvements! Crlaud (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Here are a few suggestion before you post your edits to the main article.

1. As pointed out by others, you are not using the Wikipedia formatting. If you need a refresh on editing basics, please use the Training Modules linked on our Wikipedia Course page or you can ask me directly for help.
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 propose strong disagreement.
3. Please try not to use so many bullet points. You need to write paragraphs in most cases.
4. You did not do the Reference formatting correctly. Please refer to the Video tutorial here on this page and choose the right template for different sources like journal articles and web pages. Make sure you include a title and retrieval date when you cite a web page.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)