instructor's comments

1) Content

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

N/A (present in the original article)

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?

No. There is not a single link in the provided draft.

D) Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

Yes, the provided example on Crestor is appropriate. However, no sources for this tory are cited.

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

No.

2) Figures

A) Are the figures original and of high quality?

N/A

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

N/A

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

3) References

A) Are the references complete?

No additional references are provided.

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

N/A

4) Overall Presentation

Overall, the author’s proposal to incorporate additions to the “Cost” and “Evaluation criteria for public-funding of orphan drugs” is a valid proposal. However, the authors should justify the partial deletion of the following phrase that is currently present in Wikipedia:

There is a further reduction to the cost of development because of the tax incentives in the Orphan Drug Act 1983. On average the cost per patient for orphan drugs is "six times that of non-orphan drugs, a clear indication of their pricing power."[1] Partly as a result of the 1983 US Orphan Drug Act, Japan adopted it in 1993 as did the European Union in 2000.[1]

5) Format and timing of submission

While the work was submitted in time, the authors did not follow the requested format. The issues with formatting, Schemes/Figures/Tables and required number of sources/references should be addressed in the final draft.

PN 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)