![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before starting work on major improvements to this article, I thought that it should at least have the correct name. I therefore propose moving it to Bacteriological water analysis. All objections and notes of agreement below please . Velela ( talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hossain, S. M. Zakir; Ozimok, Cory; Sicard, Clémence; Aguirre, Sergio D.; Ali, M. Monsur; Li, Yingfu; Brennan, John D. (2012),
"Multiplexed paper test strip for quantitative bacterial detection",
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, online (published April 18, 2012),
doi:
10.1007/s00216-012-5975-x, retrieved May 1, 2012 {{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The statement "no scientific paper could be cited under any circumstances except for review articles" is absolute nonsense and I have great difficulty believing User:Velella is acting in good faith when he/she puts this statement forward. Also, the statement "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" only applies to articles as a whole, and does not apply to individual statements or citations within articles. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course scientific papers should be cited and I think it's completely crazy to argue that it is forbidden by policy. There are separate issues of relevance (is the citation really the most appropriate way of referencing the content?), due weight (is the reference used to support material that's only tangential to the main subject?) and conflicts of interest (is the reference being added by someone with an agenda?) that should be addressed. But fundamentally, peer-reviewed journals are excellent sources of references for Wikipedia articles. Pichpich ( talk) 17:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on commonly available home water tests, eg https://www.amazon.com/Health-Metric-Bacteria-Coliform-Definitive/dp/B07BRNVJ7G/ . Not helpful. Please update this article to include the real world we live in today. Whiterosesinbloom ( talk) 15:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before starting work on major improvements to this article, I thought that it should at least have the correct name. I therefore propose moving it to Bacteriological water analysis. All objections and notes of agreement below please . Velela ( talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hossain, S. M. Zakir; Ozimok, Cory; Sicard, Clémence; Aguirre, Sergio D.; Ali, M. Monsur; Li, Yingfu; Brennan, John D. (2012),
"Multiplexed paper test strip for quantitative bacterial detection",
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, online (published April 18, 2012),
doi:
10.1007/s00216-012-5975-x, retrieved May 1, 2012 {{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The statement "no scientific paper could be cited under any circumstances except for review articles" is absolute nonsense and I have great difficulty believing User:Velella is acting in good faith when he/she puts this statement forward. Also, the statement "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" only applies to articles as a whole, and does not apply to individual statements or citations within articles. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course scientific papers should be cited and I think it's completely crazy to argue that it is forbidden by policy. There are separate issues of relevance (is the citation really the most appropriate way of referencing the content?), due weight (is the reference used to support material that's only tangential to the main subject?) and conflicts of interest (is the reference being added by someone with an agenda?) that should be addressed. But fundamentally, peer-reviewed journals are excellent sources of references for Wikipedia articles. Pichpich ( talk) 17:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on commonly available home water tests, eg https://www.amazon.com/Health-Metric-Bacteria-Coliform-Definitive/dp/B07BRNVJ7G/ . Not helpful. Please update this article to include the real world we live in today. Whiterosesinbloom ( talk) 15:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)