Drug Pricing Factors reviewed by Morgan Groendyke (a) Content • Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts? Introductory section was not addressed by the edits, but it could have been improved. The current introductory section does not inform the reader of the following content.

• Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Some of the sections regarding research/development of drugs are too detailed about the processes of research. These sections should talk only about the factors that affect pricing, and they should try to trim down on data that would be more relevant on a page about drug development. The Benefits and Side Effects section seems large to contain information that is largely unrelated to pricing.

• Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference? 

Many important terms are linked with the exception of a few drugs, pharmaceutical companies, etc. (i.e. AstraZeneca, FDA, Roche, etc,) • Are the highlighted examples appropriate? Yes, all of the currently linked terms are appropriate. • Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia? No, much of the content is additive to the current Wikipedia page. The information provided was very vague, but the editors did a good job of including every facet of drug pricing factors. Much of the current content includes snippets of the process, but the edits give the information more context.

(b) Figures • Are the figures original and of high quality? Yes, the two figures are high quality and original. The graph of pricing before and after patents is extremely important to the topic, and clearly shows the data. • Are the figures informative and add to the text? The figures are very informative. The clean layout of the numbers for the chart shows the exorbitant prices of the US compared to various other countries in a number of drugs. The graph showed the dramatic drop in drug prices after a patent runs out, and showed readers in a simple form how a patent increases prices. The graph linked well with their discussion of competitors versus demand versus pricing. • Are the substance and/or protein structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? Not applicable.

(c) References • Are the references complete? Yes, all information is referenced. • Are the references inclusive of non-journals sources? There was a good range of references from news articles and journals that were all credible.

(d) Overall Presentation • Provide a short summary of the entire content/figures/references, highlighting both what the group did well and well as what still needs to be improved.

The edits made were well researched and informative to the reader. The edits will make a considerable addition to the current page, but much of the current page could still use editing. The editors could have focused on revising the page’s current information rather than adding more. The opening section is vague and brief, and much of the current information has typos and other mistakes. The current page is disorganized and the information is not clearly presented. I like that the edits proposed talk more about the source of drug pricing in great detail rather than just saying that the prices are high in the US. The reference towards specific drugs gave the information context. The graph and data table used were both appropriate and informative. Some of the data on the process could be condensed in order to stay on topic, but the thoroughness of the data is good. The information they found was from credible sources and was always referenced.

MorganGroendyke (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)MorganGroendyke[reply]

instructor comments[edit]

1) Content

A) Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

Introduction section is missing, but would be beneficial as it should summarize the information presented at the current article and give links to related pages.

B) Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Yes

C) Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further references?

Mostly. There should be a section listing links to the related pages (i.e. doping in sports) and organizations such as WADA.

D) Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

Yes. The authors did extensive job in preparing a list of banned compounds and describing the rules and practices by MLB, NFL and NHL.

E) Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

Mostly not although there is an overview of doping in MLB and there are webpages on doping in sport

2) Figures

A) Are the figures original and of high quality?

No chance to judge. The authors posted a figure that was removed due to the copyright violation.

B) Are the figures informative and add to the text?

No chance to judge as the figure was removed. However, providing Logo of professional sport organizations is not particularly informative as far as the discussion of doping is concerned.

C) Are the substance and/or protein structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? N/A

3) References

A) Are the references complete?

Yes

B) Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes

4) Overall Presentation

Overall, it is a well-prepared and researched article. It can be further improved by including an introduction explaining and defining the scope of the article. In addition, the authors should address the issue with the Figure/Scheme/Table and come up with a way to introduce it without violating copyright.

PN 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Great work with adding this needed section for the article. Here are a few suggestions before you post it to the main space.

1. Reference 11 and 12 are duplicated, please correct them as you did for previous repeated ones.
2. The last figure you used is from a journal article and it's an open access one shared under CC license. So, you chose the right way to share it. However, I do want to mention that not all open access articles are shared under CC license. Please remember to check that before you use any media files in the future. Also, please add some caption to the figure and may be making it bigger. Please see this tutorial Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for how to do it.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]