User talk:Midnight cereal
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Midnight cereal, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review for P3
[edit]Summary The Wikipedia draft introduces the reader to the concept of the rapid-acting antidepressant, which improves symptoms of depression in minutes or hours. The draft further gives a list of conventional, slower-acting antidepressants before noting that rapid-acting antidepressants show promise in treating patient groups that show poor responses to treatment with conventional antidepressants. A history section outlines how euphoriants were the first rapid-acting antidepressants but are no longer used for several medical reasons. The history section ends with the presentation of two drugs which show potential as rapid-acting antidepressants.
Major Points The draft does not clarify whether or not the work in the sandbox is meant to replace or supplement the current Wikipedia article, making it difficult to accurately judge the text. Currently, much of the text comes directly from the current article, although the draft does omit some material (hence the confusion regarding the author’s intent). Most of the omitted material is a list of rapid-acting antidepressants. Given that several conventional antidepressants are listed in the opening paragraph, the omission of a list of rapid-acting antidepressants, the subject of the article, seems counterproductive.
The history section builds upon some material in the current article but could be expanded even further. Currently the section begins by outlining the use of euphoriants as rapid-acting antidepressants in the early 20th century and then jumps to a study conducted in 2000. This is a large time gap which deserves attention in a history section. Was research on rapid-acting antidepressants performed during other parts of the 20th century? If not, it might be useful to note that fact. Furthermore, a discussion of current research directions and proposed treatment mechanisms would be helpful.
The current draft does do several things well. First and foremost, it provides citations, which the original article lacks completely. Additionally, it continues to use the original article’s tone of neutrality and at no point does it make speculations. The use of links, although heavy at times, successfully directs the reader to relevant articles necessary to fully understand the rapid-acting antidepressant article.
Minor Points The article has several sentences (both from the original article and new additions) which would benefit from revised structure or word choice. The second sentence begins with, “In contrast to rapid-acting antidepressants, conventional antidepressants….” Given that the sentence immediately preceding this one defines rapid-acting antidepressants and provides a time scale for how rapidly they act, it would be more efficient to simply say, “By contrast, conventional antidepressants....” The final sentence of the first section says, “These rapid-acting antidepressants are also shown to be effective in patient groups known to have poor response to other antidepressants.” At no point in the first paragraph was a list of fast-acting antidepressants given, so it’s not clear what “these” refers to, especially since the sentence immediately prior lists conventional antidepressants. In the first sentence of the second section “formerly” could be removed, improving word economy. Similarly, in the second sentence the phrase “drugs like” could also be removed. Several other possible efficiency boosting deletions exist throughout the draft. The fourth sentence, which reads, “Moreover, these drugs show long-lasting depressive effects with long-term use,” could be reworded to improve clarity. Currently, the sentence does not make it clear whether long-lasting means that the depressive effects last long after administration of the drugs ceases or something else. In the final sentence replacement of “severely” with “highly” would improve clarity and flow.
Closing Thoughts As a standalone draft this article is missing some useful information which was present in the original Wikipedia article. However, if the draft is to be merged with the existing article then the final product will be an improvement over what currently exists, especially with the addition of the four sources given with the draft. Some good opportunities exist to further expand upon topics discussed in the article, but they are not so critical that the article makes no sense without those expansions. OrionAuriga (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)