This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The sentence "Prognosis of fish dropsy is not good." does not seem encyclopedic, nor is it very informative; more like a line from a movie, sit-com, or cartoon. Any thoughts or ideas? I did not want to be presumptuous and remove it without some feedback. More importantly: what should the sentence be replaced with if at all (something informative)? 67.186.226.117 ( talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this article be tagged as being all original research WP:PRIMARY? I don't see any citations. Where did this content get its authority to be here? Who knows if its even true? -- Retran ( talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As it seems obvious that this article has absolutely no citations, I am placing the "unreferenced" header in the article. Retran ( talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it standard practice for Wikipedia articles to link to search engine and directory results pages? Is that very helpful to readers seeking encyclopedic content? This section ("External Links"), in this particular article, as it currently reads, I think, should be removed. -- Retran ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Continuing the citation theme; what is the source of the images, and their captions? How do we know they are indeed examples of this dropsy condition? Retran ( talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems potentially dangerous that these treatments are listed here without primary citations. As I'm sure this treatment advice was put here in good faith, we need a source detailing these are indeed accepted treatments. Retran ( talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I took out a lot of the uncited information and tightened up the remaining information and cited a reliable source. Most of the original article was more or less correct, but it was just poorly written and uncited. After removing the repetitive, vague and inaccurate parts, the article is now pretty short though, should it be marked a stub? Really the subject doesn't deserve much more of a description than is already here, but I feel that it's a useful article nonetheless.
Also, I took out the "unreferenced" header because I cited the info I put in, however, it's only a single source, so if someone wants to add a new header to indicate a need for additional sources, I wouldn't argue with that. Jvanhoy ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone refer to dropsy as "fish dropsy". Should we rename the page to "Dropsy" instead? Antrogh ( talk) 04:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The sentence "Prognosis of fish dropsy is not good." does not seem encyclopedic, nor is it very informative; more like a line from a movie, sit-com, or cartoon. Any thoughts or ideas? I did not want to be presumptuous and remove it without some feedback. More importantly: what should the sentence be replaced with if at all (something informative)? 67.186.226.117 ( talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this article be tagged as being all original research WP:PRIMARY? I don't see any citations. Where did this content get its authority to be here? Who knows if its even true? -- Retran ( talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As it seems obvious that this article has absolutely no citations, I am placing the "unreferenced" header in the article. Retran ( talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it standard practice for Wikipedia articles to link to search engine and directory results pages? Is that very helpful to readers seeking encyclopedic content? This section ("External Links"), in this particular article, as it currently reads, I think, should be removed. -- Retran ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Continuing the citation theme; what is the source of the images, and their captions? How do we know they are indeed examples of this dropsy condition? Retran ( talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems potentially dangerous that these treatments are listed here without primary citations. As I'm sure this treatment advice was put here in good faith, we need a source detailing these are indeed accepted treatments. Retran ( talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I took out a lot of the uncited information and tightened up the remaining information and cited a reliable source. Most of the original article was more or less correct, but it was just poorly written and uncited. After removing the repetitive, vague and inaccurate parts, the article is now pretty short though, should it be marked a stub? Really the subject doesn't deserve much more of a description than is already here, but I feel that it's a useful article nonetheless.
Also, I took out the "unreferenced" header because I cited the info I put in, however, it's only a single source, so if someone wants to add a new header to indicate a need for additional sources, I wouldn't argue with that. Jvanhoy ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone refer to dropsy as "fish dropsy". Should we rename the page to "Dropsy" instead? Antrogh ( talk) 04:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)