User talk:Hillaryjd/sandbox

So I chose to expand this article because apparently 5000+ words weren't enough for me with the literature review. I looked at other chemical core articles for the ideal format for this kind of article. Wikipedia should accept this article (once I'm done with tons of necessary revision) because I do believe this article meets its standards even as of now. I focused on a single subject, but also split the article up into headings and subheadings. I even added my own figure (and might add some more in the future). I used credible sources I found on my own as well as sources used in other Wikipedia articles I looked at for reference. I'm pretty sure I maintained a neutral point of view while working on this article. Hillaryjd (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hilaryjd,

Below is my peer review!

Major Points: The sentence under structure and properties that discusses quinazlonie's alternate name and how it got it might be better suited as the introductory sentence in this paragraph. In the description of the first chemists to synthesize the molecule the first name of "Lang" is left out. If it it possible, it may be beneficial to add his name and a link to his wiki article if one exists. It me be useful to mention where this drug is naturally found. A picture of the structure of each pharmaceutical derivative would be helpful. Also a picture of the synthesis or degradation of the parent structure to reach each derivative would also make this section even stronger. Under Getfitinib it mentions that the drug works as a protein kinase inhibitor. I am wondering if it would be helpful if the type of inhibitor (competitive?) (reversible/ irreversible?) were mentioned? A link added to the general class of antagonist it falls under to would also help readers who are less knowledgeable with the types of inhibitors understand how these drugs function better. Could these suggestions also be done for Lapatinib and Erlotinib?

Minor: It may be helpful to use the full name for the FDA before it is mentioned in the biological significance and applications section. The article is free of spelling issues or grammatical mistakes. Looking forward to reading this article again soon! Gandalf122 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf122 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Major Points I was looking at the Wiki articles for other chemicals and I noticed that some of them have a history section. Since the article includes historical information about August Bischler, Lang, and Siegmund Gabriel it may be possible to add more information such as where each of these chemists performed their experiments and under what university/company, and put all of this under a "History" section. The editor could then include just the steps of synthesis and the diagram that was made under "Synthesis". I also noticed that some Wiki pages for chemicals have a "Medical uses" section with bullet points of the diseases/conditions the chemical has been implicated in. This could also make the article stronger and more accessible. The article does not currently include certain information about the derivatives such as melting point, boiling point molar mass or other intrinsic properties. I will leave that up to the editor to decide if this information regarding the derivatives is important enough to include in perhaps a table that combines all of them for simplicity.

Minor Points The article is mostly free of spelling and grammar issues. I know the editor has been having trouble locating Lang's first name. Is "Roche" under the Lapatanib section referring to Hoffman-La Roche or Roche Applied Sciences (or both)? The word alone, and the link, are both leaving the reader with a lot of work to do in order to figure out what the editor was referring to. Also a link between terms like "oxidize" and "reduce" and their respective Wiki articles would be helpful to readers. Gandalf122 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Final Context Memo

Here's a link to my edited article on quinazoline.


I had a few options when choosing what Wikipedia I wanted to expand upon. I even could've written a whole new article on quinazoline derivatives, but I was tired of looking into those (for now) after that 5030 word literature review I wrote for Project 2. I figured it would be easier expanding upon a subject I knew enough about without having the trouble of starting a new article that would get heavily critiqued by my fellow Wikipedia editors.


The previous quinazoline article was comprised of a total of three paragraphs. Since beginning my expansion of the article, the present article now has two new sections (other than the introduction) as well as six new subsections to organize the information on the molecule better than before. Wikipedia should accept this article because I do believe this article meets its standards of being written from a neutral point of view, using reliable and authoritative sources, and containing verifiable accuracy (as according to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia).


I believe the newly edited article is understandable to readers in my field and outside of my field. Additionally, the article includes precise and explicit information on the subject. As expected in a Wikipedia article, the standard writing conventions of modern language (e.g., grammar and spelling) are followed. The article contains wikilinks to relevant articles that add to the understanding of the subject of my article.Hillaryjd (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)