User talk:Iandoxsee/sandbox

peer review

After reading this article, it seems like it was clearly written by an expert, and a chemist, the language may be a bit technical for a Wikipedia article and it may be inaccessible to non-scientists. This is most evident in the examples that are given, perhaps it would be helpful to use an example of a drug that people are more familiar with and talk about that. Acetaminophen would be a good example, because since it was originally derived from a tree bark, and chemists added the substituents onto the compound to make it into the drug that we all know and use today. I feel like there is also a place for there to be talking about how the pharmaceutical industry will patent the drug they use and the entire library of drugs that are similar to protect their original patent. On a subject this complex and documented there should be more then just two sources that are cited in the article.

There appears to be room to do some in article links as well, like when the article refers to pharmaceutical science, there is probably a pharmaceutical wiki page that is relevant. There should also be a title separating out your references from the rest of the page, right now it looks like your references are in the non-classical bioisosteres section. The very top of the article should also have a title letting the wiki user know what article they are about to read.

Miller.tod (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

I agree with Miller.tod, some of the language is a little technical and some of the links should be fixed. For example, The first sentence could be simplified just a bit more, I feel. I would also recommend playing with the formatting a bit because of the images. The images are great! Fantastic addition! They are perfect for understanding the topic.

I would recommend working on the organization of the page. I feel there may be a better way to organize the information. Right now it's just a jumble, but that's probably because of the formatting. Maybe add a section or two to better organize the information. Also, this may benefit from adding sentences (maybe a section) on what characteristics make groups bioisosteres. Right now, it just talks about size, but there may be more. You'd know better than I would, but I feel like there are other chemical properties that come into play. If there are any examples of bioisosteres that have come up in the news, that would be cool, but I know that is unlikely. If there's any history, that may contribute as well. The isomer page may be the most relatable to this one for ideas.Anthpulido (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)