This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... This is one of many respected medical journals described in encyclopedic terms such as /info/en/?search=The_BMJ If you can assist with where chnages need to be made it would be appreciated.

In the meantime I have made the topic more neutral and removed link-outs to social media and person-specific information.

Thanks Gareth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethbaxendale ( talk • contribs)

I agree... seems pretty neutral at this point. Should not be deleted. Furorimpius ( talk) 10:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Actually, it still was promotional. I have now removed all promotional language and added independent references that show that this journal actually is notable. And, really, you really want to compare this rather obscure journal to The BMJ, one of the most respected medical journals around? -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I was suggesting the BMJ page as a template for the tone and wording, while I do not agree that the page was promotional in nature I will accept the changes as made. As it happens The BMJ do informally provide support for our 'obscure' journal and I would suggest that such personal opinions are left out of this review process. Gareth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethbaxendale ( talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. "obscure" is actually reasonably objective here, given that the journal is only indexed in very few selective databases and covers a rather specialized field. I understand that as an editor of this journal, you may think differently about this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I take your point :-) and thanks for your help. Garethbaxendale ( talk) 12:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply