Beleriandcrises
April 2018
edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Urtica dioica, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Your content and sources are unencyclopedic. They would be ok for a school science paper but do not meet the source standards of an encyclopedia. For discussing and sourcing confirmed medicinal effects, please read and follow WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Zefr, I tried to gather as many sources as I could and I highlighted how more studies would be needed, in some cases. Not all sources are secondary, but none are in vitro and they all are from respected medical journals. If the problem is just one thing, please let me know what is it. If all of the statements have an invalid source, I can't do better than that I'm afraid, I'll just leave it as it is.
- Hello. In reviewing your edit, the five factors behind my revert were: 1) you made conclusive statements from primary research, described in WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDASSESS, where primary (lab) studies and interpreted content are unacceptable for an encyclopedia (may be ok for a thesis or term paper); 2) the journal quality of the sources you used is generally weak, long out of date in some cases, and unacceptable. In writing an encyclopedia, we are held to high-quality clinical research published in reputable journals, books, government, or professional publications -- see WP:MEDREV; 3) your content would not be acceptable in general to scientists expert in the field, as it represents preliminary, laboratory or speculative conclusions -- see WP:MEDSCI for scientific consensus; 4) you make assertions about positive health effects, without actually having sufficient WP:MEDRS sources and conclusions (i.e., from authoritative reputable clinical reviews), and therefore the health claims proposed are far from proven adequately or factual; 5) intending to be comprehensive, you involved individual studies and statements to cover several possible clinical uses, but without adequate sourcing, falling within WP:NOTJOURNAL, see #6-7. I hope this is helpful. --Zefr (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes this is more helpful for me to understand how to improve. I'll dive deeper into the sources and see if I can make a great paragraph out of it. - Beleriandcrises (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. In reviewing your edit, the five factors behind my revert were: 1) you made conclusive statements from primary research, described in WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDASSESS, where primary (lab) studies and interpreted content are unacceptable for an encyclopedia (may be ok for a thesis or term paper); 2) the journal quality of the sources you used is generally weak, long out of date in some cases, and unacceptable. In writing an encyclopedia, we are held to high-quality clinical research published in reputable journals, books, government, or professional publications -- see WP:MEDREV; 3) your content would not be acceptable in general to scientists expert in the field, as it represents preliminary, laboratory or speculative conclusions -- see WP:MEDSCI for scientific consensus; 4) you make assertions about positive health effects, without actually having sufficient WP:MEDRS sources and conclusions (i.e., from authoritative reputable clinical reviews), and therefore the health claims proposed are far from proven adequately or factual; 5) intending to be comprehensive, you involved individual studies and statements to cover several possible clinical uses, but without adequate sourcing, falling within WP:NOTJOURNAL, see #6-7. I hope this is helpful. --Zefr (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy Earth day!
edit
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Ecology.
|
What is this?
What you can do!!
Newly nominated content
Similar events
|
  
|
| |||
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)