User talk:Zachduff/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1

Content:

The introduction to this article is clear to non-experts on the topic of Orphan Drugs. However, the formatting in your Sandbox is off and does not have the same presentation as that of the original Wikipedia page. I found it confusing to review the Sandbox because I struggled to follow the formatting so I would definitely look into this. Some of the links to existing pages are not in existence so be sure to cross check this before the next submission of the project. In your Sandbox, many of the important terms are not linked so this is also something to look out for. Even those with links in the initial article are not in your Sandbox. For the most part, the contents of each section seem to justify its length. I do however, feel that you could go more in depth regarding some of the subjects and clarify their relation to Orphan Drugs. For example, I think you should add more information regarding Rare Disease Act, Regulatory harmonization, and "other countries" because they are brushed over rather quickly.

As far as "other countries" goes, the edits you have made regarding classification could fit here. The highlighted examples in the article do a good job of exemplifying Orphan Drugs, but once again I feel that you can go more in depth with these rather than just linking users to a different page. It seems as though there are an extensive amount of topics covered on the page and not that much information associated with these topics.

I think you did a good job contributing to the page and adding useful information on the topic. I also think that you could add a little more!

Figures

There are no figures included in this article. I think that you could definitely incorporate a molecular model of an example of an orphan drug.

References

The references are formatted strangely on the Sandbox page but everything seems to be cited on the original Wikipedia page. The original reference list does include non journals, which is totally fine.

Overall Presentation

As I stated above, there are several things that need to be fixed with the physical appearance of the page. Ultimately, I struggled to even locate some of the changes you made. This may be due to the formatting but also could just be because tracking the edits was difficult. I do think that the changes made are valuable and that you did a good job of further explaining Orphan Drugs. I feel that fixing the formatting to follow that of the original page will be beneficial to the reader. I also think that going further in depth into certain topics would also be very helpful! Overall, it is a very interesting topic and fascinating to read.

Lhochhauser (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Lhochhauser

Response to Peer Review

Thank you for your Review we went in and fixed the wonky formatting that appeared in our sandbox so now it appears like a proper Wikipedia article. We added more links to our added sections and added more links to the preexisting sections of the Wikipedia article to make it a bigger part of the overall Wikipedia community. We took your advice and used a figure of a orphan drug in the article but we decided to make it Crestor an orphan drug that gamed the system and was marketed to a large consumer base. We fixed the references section and added new references of our own so we are now responsible for references 16,22,23,24, and 31. Zachduff (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review #2 (by Natalie)

Content:

The introductory section is clear and accessible for everyone. Good job making it clear what orphan drugs are and their importance. However, I found the quote included in the bottom of the section to be introduced a little awkwardly, and suggest you add another sentence leading into it besides "by 2012." None of the sections are unreasonably long, but maybe you could add more to the "Regulatory harmonization" and "other countries" sections, or instead of "other countries" being it's own section, add that to the EU part and just do a new "outside of the U.S." section. Most of the important terms have links to pages, but not every link worked for me. For the most part there was no redundancy or duplicative content that I noted, but maybe you don't have to have a whole section for the "rare diseases act", and instead integrate it into another section, since there already exists a whole wikipedia page for that.

Figures

There were no figures, so you will have to add those. But even if you don't find any available, maybe you could make a chart with the information you already have relating to the cost of Orphan drugs.

References

On the original wikipedia page which most people will access, the references look fine to me. It looked a little weird on sandbox but I guess that doesn't matter as long as it works on the original page.

Overall Presentation

Good job overall. I think you could consolidate some of the smaller sections to make the reading flow more smoothly appearance-wise, or simply elaborate on these topics to make them more lengthy and justify their having their own section. But overall the content is clear and organized in a way that makes sense. Nice job-- didn't notice any bias or major problems. Just adding figures will solve one of the major problems. It was interesting and accessible to read.

Ngreifer (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)ngreifer

Response to Peer Review

Thanks for your input we did decide to add more information to the existing sections of the article but we decided instead to focus on the relationship of Orphan Drugs and AIDS in the effectiveness section because we found a very interesting journal article about this relationship and thought it would be a valuable and interesting addition to the article. We were able to find a figure of Crestor to add to the article. We fixed the references in our sandbox and the formatting to accurately reflected the final Wikipedia page. Wbigley (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

It's a little difficult to tell your additions since the original article was quite long to start with. I see that you added a paragraph at the end of the Effectiveness section. One paragraph in Cost. and one section on Abuse of public-funding for orphan drugs. Is that all?

Here are a few suggestions before you post your edits to the main space.

1. It seems that you messed up some references in the original article like Reference 1 in your Sandbox version. Please be careful not to carry those mistakes back to the main article. Please only copy/paste the paragraphs you added one by one.
2. The last sentence of your Abuse sections says "With more and more orphan drug's being filed every year it seems that companies are looking to take advantage of these loop holes to minimize research and development cost and make a larger profit margin.". It reads like a statement you make. Is there any reference mentioned this statement? If so, cite it. If not, please be careful with making a statement like this because it would make it your opinion piece instead of an encyclopedia article only reflecting what's been reported.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)