Talk:Aripiprazole lauroxil

Summary of Peer Reviews and Responses from CRLAUD sandbox talk page

Bold text(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)

Crlaud (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Winter 2016

From: sklarjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklarjo (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 1- Content

I thought your intro was very easy to comprehend, even for someone who isn't an expert. I was however confused on why you included the piece about the warning label on the box in this section. I feel like this paragraph would fit better in the side effects and dosing section. On top of this problem, I was concerned about the content in the Dosing sections. This reads almost like a WebMD article, telling patients what to do if they mess up their dosing. I'd recommend changing this section from a bulleted list to paragraph form, so it reads more like an article. This problem is shown throughout the article and may just require a quick rewording or two. I also don't think you made any links to other wikipedia articles so you may want to hyperlink special words that the common reader won't understand.

Figures

I didn't actually see any figures so I can't comment

references

You did a good job of spreading out your research, not relying on just one. After flipping through them I also see that some are journals where others are more common website like WebMD, I think this is good when you want to get the most information possible.

Overall

Overall I thought your article was well written and very educational. I do however believe you should reword several of the section. As I said above, it reads like an instruction manual to someone who uses the drug. I believe a good fix to this would be simply to put it all in paragraph form instead of bulleted. I also think a figure or two would be helpful. Perhaps a graph showing the yearly usage, yearly over dose rate, or even a picture of the drug would be helpful.

Response to Peer Review 1- Content Thank you for the compliments about the introduction. The comment about the warning label is noted and we will consider moving it to the side effects subsection. Regarding the dosing section, we made changes by changing the wording and shifting to using more paragraphs than bulleted lists. Eventually for dosing information, we will likely make a chart.

Figures While the grading policy for the presence of figures in our first draft was not specified, we will consider adding a figure of the acting chemical compound of the drug in addition to a chart for dosing.

References We tried to diversify our sources as much as possible and we're glad that our depth of research was obvious to the reader. Depth and accuracy of information was certainly a priority of ours, placed ahead of finding figures.

Overall I appreciate the compliments regarding the quality of writing on the article. We re-worded some of our sections as you suggested and will continue to work on the article until the Final Draft is due on April 19. We're looking into which images, figures and charts would be helpful and how they should be presented in the article. Due to a strong emphasis on accuracy of research and taking a methodical approach to editing for the final draft, we only incorporated a few changes as of April 5. The syllabus was ambiguous as to how many of our changes should be incorporated, and while other ambiguities were penalized, we hope that this will not be the case this time around.

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian- Here are a few suggestion before you post your edits to the main article.

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. 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. Please try not to use so many bullet points. You need to write paragraphs in most cases. 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.

To summarize: We added Section 1, Medical Uses, to expound on the information for the use of the drug and its intended treatment. We also added information about the proper dosing, dosing protocols, dose adjustments, side effects, etc in section 2. In Section 3 we added information about the pharmacology of the drug. We would have added these paragraph by paragraph, as our instructor desired, but we had difficulties with re-editing the main page after we'd saved it once. Because of this we had to submit all of our edits in two separate additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklarjo (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dosing

The frequency of dosing should include the 1064 mg q2mo formulation. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 06:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

According to a quick google image search(!) there seem to be doses of 331, 662, 882 and 1064mg available i.e. more than two dosages; also the sentence Aripiprazole lauroxil is a longer-lasting and injectable version of the schizophrenia pill aripiprazole, which means that the treatment is available in two doses does not make sense - the first part doesnt have to do anything with the availability of various dosages. --Gerlindewurst73 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)