search

pharmaverse / blog

Blogging on the latest, greatest and most spectacular stuff happening around the pharmaverse
https://pharmaverse.github.io/blog/
Apache License 2.0
21 stars 9 forks source link

66 pharmaverse story #87

Closed nicholaswe closed 1 year ago

nicholaswe commented 1 year ago

Hello, @bms63 and @StefanThoma!

Sorry for taking so much time to finish this, but now I think I have a final version of the "Pharmaverse (hi)story" post.

I've been talking with some of the guys from pharmaverse council and basically wrote their reports in this post with my own words and understanding of the facts.

As I didn't know when it would be published, I used a dummy date to create the folder on "post" directory, so we can change that.

Finally, I'll send a .doc file with the same text (excluding hyperlinks) to the people I mentioned just to make sure we are publishing the right history and to see if they think we need to add something.

Thanks!

bms63 commented 1 year ago

@nicholaswe can you use the R/CICD.R file to run spell check on your post please.

nicholaswe commented 1 year ago

@bms63, just updated the wordlist ;)

bms63 commented 1 year ago

Could you unbold this so it is consistent with other posts please

image

bms63 commented 1 year ago

This quote from John Donne and your use of agree with me seems a little off. Should it be "can't disagree with him either"

image

bms63 commented 1 year ago

I would be more concise here: On August 16 and 17, they gathered...

image

bms63 commented 1 year ago

I would be more concise here: On August 16 and 17, they gathered...

image

On second thought...this paragraph references 2018 and then references Stefan and Isabella's posts from 2023 feels disjointed. Looking over the article, we go from 2020, to 2022 to 2018 and then references posts written in 2023. Is there anyway to update these paragraphs to be more linear in time? I love all this information here and apologies to be nitpicky, but I felt a bit confused.

Might also be an opportunity to plug 2023 R/Pharam at Posit Con as well?

bms63 commented 1 year ago

I think the word "solving" would be nice here. No need to say stifling - I think overwhelming is enough. image

bms63 commented 1 year ago

As a reader not familiar with these packages - it would be interesting to understand what they do briefly. You refence that admiral is for building ADaMs in the next paragraph, so I think it is okay to mention that metacore is for manipulating metadata for ADaMs/SDTMs, xportr is to build submission compliant xpts and logrx is to build logs R scripts.

image

The Stackhouse Report phrase also feels disjointed. Perhpas just say "In 2020, Mike Stackhouse (Atorus) and Michael Rimler (GSK) formed a partnership to build...

Missing closing parentheses at the end of the paragraph.

bms63 commented 1 year ago

extra period image

bms63 commented 1 year ago

Nicely done @nicholaswe !! Appreciate you pulling some of the history together for us!!

nicholaswe commented 1 year ago

Hello, @bms63!

Thanks a lot for your suggestions, they were really valuable and made the post better!

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to reorder the paragraphs/sentences to make the dates more linear, so I added section titles in the post to break the text and force a division between dates. I got your point, but in the case I'm mentioning Ross, Stefan, or Isabella I'm indirectly pointing to the date they are talking about, which is not 2023 or 2022, so I believe we continue with a chronological order.

Sorry for that, I couldn't think of a new layout for the ideas. But if you have any suggestions, please, let me know and we can discuss that. My mind is so used to the current text format that it's hard to think outside the box :/

Also, I didn't know how to mention/include R/Pharma 2023 in a natural way. Maybe we can add a section "Got interested?" and explain how people can find more information about pharmaverse and the next events? My only concern is that this will make the text temporal.

Thanks one more time!

bms63 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for all the great updates!! It is much easier flow-wise.

My last request is that we use everyone's full name - e.g. you use Rimler, Michael and Michael Rimler at different places. I think all names should just be full names, e.g. Michael Rimler (GSK) with company in parenthesis. I think this will read a little better and make it sound less informal.

Thanks again. Please see Stefan's PRs requests again and we can wrap this up!!

nicholaswe commented 1 year ago

Hello, @bms63, @rossfarrugia and @StefanThoma.

Thank you very much for all your suggestions, they have been fully implemented in the text and have made it more enjoyable to read. :)

I think now we are ready to go!

I hope it will stimulate the curiosity of people outside the community on the subject.

Thanks.