User talk:Anthonyb9798/sandbox

Anthony The existing antidepressant article on wikipedia is already pretty comprehensive, but I like the edits you are going to add. The results table that you added seems to make understanding the different treatment techniques very easy. Since the article is already quite lengthy, I like how concise the information is in the chart. The list of barriers is also a nice way to look at a lot of information quickly. I do know know how easy it is to add citations to an existing article, or if you did not include them because the article already cited the sources you used. If a citation is not already in the mainpage, it would be good to add some, or add some updated ones since some of the citations from the existing article are from years ago. The tables seem like a good way to add truncated information to the pages. Adding these and more sources seen like the most important edits to me, instead of much more text that may get lost in the article. The first paragraph in the introduction of the mainpage does not have any sources, just links to other pages, so even adding sources here could be beneficial. I really like the tables you used! I’m not sure what information I could put in one on my own page, but I think it looks really nice and makes the page look more interesting and inviting. Really cool!Hogan.jac (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

I really like the way you’ve organized the sub-topics: it feels very logical and I can quickly get a good grasp of the basics of antidepressant adherence from it. I think the tables are a great way to convey information, and I completely agree with the notes made, for instance about getting information on specific measurement tools or finding quantitative data concerning clinical and economic implications of non-adherence. My primary suggestion would be to continue adding more details to the sub-sections, and to make sure everything is cited. But so far, what you have is already very informative — well done! Emilyc44 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Independent Pharmacy

1.)Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? All of the information included in this article is relevant to independent pharmacy practice. The incorporation of insurance practices in the section about Independent Pharmacy in Rural America did serve to be a bit distracting. 2.)Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The only somewhat biased statement appears to be "Independent pharmacy owners generally have high standards of customer service and strive to outperform chain pharmacy competitors." This can possibly imply that pharmacists outside of independent pharmacy are somewhat inferior. 3.)Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Information about what makes independent pharmacies special appears to be heavily represented through including positive survey results, but potential drawbacks to using an independent pharmacy are not addressed. 4.)Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citation links do work, and the sources support the claims made in the article. 5.)Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Many of the facts come from independent survey organizations, and thus can be considered relatively neutral. 6.)Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Most of the information appears to have come from sources that have been published after 2010, meaning they are fairly up-to-date. The article could benefit from the addition of criticism and drawbacks associated with an independent pharmacy. 7.)Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is no activity on the article's talk page. 8.)How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as "stub-class," and is part of the business WikiProject. 9.)How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Overall, the presentation and discussion of this topic is fairly consistent with the way discussed in class. Anthonyb9798 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

--- The planned additions to the antidepression page are worthwhile contributions and will do much to augment the content on that page (I am actually surprised that there is not already coverage on this, so it is good that you will be adding it!). It seems like it would make most sense to fit your pieces in the society and culture section, perhaps after section 7.2? In terms of revising what you currently have, I would suggest making your heading titles a bit more descriptive (more than one word--try to have a short phrase that clearly communicates what will follow). Amyc29 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)