From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unreliable References

It's bold to change this, but the references (1 and 2) are absolutely terrible.

The first reads like an advertisement and the second is just a hearsay article about a rumor. To be honest, the entire paragraph regarding being able to see "near-UV" wavelengths is suspect and not sourced with anything reliable.

If somebody can find better references, I hope they make use of them, but right now, that's not really all that reasonable.

Thanks,

PiousCorn ( talk) 06:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

PiousCorn: see this article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/may/30/medicalscience.research

That's all I've got to point out.

Wyatt8740 ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unreliable References

It's bold to change this, but the references (1 and 2) are absolutely terrible.

The first reads like an advertisement and the second is just a hearsay article about a rumor. To be honest, the entire paragraph regarding being able to see "near-UV" wavelengths is suspect and not sourced with anything reliable.

If somebody can find better references, I hope they make use of them, but right now, that's not really all that reasonable.

Thanks,

PiousCorn ( talk) 06:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

PiousCorn: see this article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/may/30/medicalscience.research

That's all I've got to point out.

Wyatt8740 ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook