User talk:Aubrey29/sandbox

Rebecca's Peer Review

For the lead section, the original leading part is easy to understand. More introduction will be better. You can basically introduce and describe the development of Pharmaceutical engineering. The structure is not that clear. I suggest that you could add some example of application in this field. Some pictures such as how the synthesis works and production can help the public to understand. You could also add the relative links for example the link for ISPE. I think people will be more curious about the current situation of pharmaceutical engineering. You could add a section "also see" and attache with some relative links and topics. The content is neutral and sources are reliable! It's a nice work! And Keep Going! Rebecca ttt (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I agree that it would be good to add more of an introduction to my article. Once I add more to the main body of the article, I will come back and see what I can add to the introduction. I like your suggestion to add a “See Also” section, and I plan to make that addition. Since my article isn’t very long, it would be good to give readers other related topics to read about if they are interested in reading more. I agree that some pictures could help with synthesis of the article. I plan to add at least one picture or figure.

I am planning to add a section that is an overview of the pharmaceutical engineering process, from drug discovery to manufacturing and distribution. I think that this will help to explain current applications in the field, as you mentioned. Aubrey29 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TJ's Peer Review

- I believe that the 2nd paragraph (Activity: Add citation) is not part of Pharmaceutical engineering.

-  History is a good approach to the introduction.
   - However, the contents are a bit out of focus. 
     1. While each subtopic (synthesizing and mass production) articulate the beginning of the branches of pharmaceutical engineering, the"Formation of the ISPE" belongs to the different category.
     2. It does not look professional yet. (ex. you could potentially find a...)
   
- Suggestion
  1. It would be great if you can add a figure, which can depict the humble beginning of pharmaceutical engineering.
     https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Penicillin#/media/File:Penicillin_bioreactor.jpg
  2. Each field of engineering has 'priority'. (ex. simulation: accuracy, speed, predictability). 
     If you can specify the keyword that illustrates the pharmaceutical engineering (drug delivery? clinical safety?), it will be easy for readers to apprehend the topic)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ.Jang (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I agree that I could improve the tone of my writing to sound more technical and professional, and I plan to keep editing my work to improve that. I also agree that I should find some figures to strengthen my article, and I plan to add at least one. I like your suggestion to include a picture of one of the original penicillin bioreactors. I agree that using a key word or idea that embodies pharmaceutical engineering will make it much easier for readers to get a clearer image of what pharmaceutical engineering is. I will try to synthesize this into the introductory paragraph.

While I see your point that the “Formation of the ISPE” section is not very similar to the other sections in the history section, I think that it is an important part of the history of pharmaceutical engineering. The formation of an organization supporting the field of pharmaceutical engineering acknowledged that the field had really grown in size and societal importance. Therefore, I think the history section is the most appropriate place for this section. Aubrey29 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]