Talk:Oncolytic adenovirus
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Rod57 in topic onyx-015 could have its own article
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latest revision too technical?
editI'm concerned that the new version of this page may be too technical for the 'widest possible audience' aim of wikipedia. It reads like a scientific review article or thesis, rather than an encyclopedia. I'd like to hear the opinion of others. Viraltonic (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. It would help a bit if it had internal links to explain some of the terms, but even with those added it would still be too technical. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- reasonable cause to revert to the old article? I don't think this user has been active since making this article so I doubt if they'll be back to improve it. Viraltonic (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The editor has since added some internal links, but does not seem inclined to enter into discussions. Another editor has since helped with standard formatting but, despite this and the internal links, the article remains incomprehensible to Wikipedia's target readership e.g. me. I therefore support the suggestion to revert to the old article. If any parts of the current one can usefully be incorporated, so much the better. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted the page now, the version still needs improvement so I will work on that. Viraltonic (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- The editor has since added some internal links, but does not seem inclined to enter into discussions. Another editor has since helped with standard formatting but, despite this and the internal links, the article remains incomprehensible to Wikipedia's target readership e.g. me. I therefore support the suggestion to revert to the old article. If any parts of the current one can usefully be incorporated, so much the better. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- reasonable cause to revert to the old article? I don't think this user has been active since making this article so I doubt if they'll be back to improve it. Viraltonic (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
onyx-015 could have its own article
editIt seems to be the first OA and as data is added it will overwhelm the rest of the article ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. Seems this article was renamed from onyx-015 on 6 April 2013. Bad idea. Should have split. - Rod57 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Where to put updates
editImmunicum’s adenovirus technology gets green light for clinical study is about an adenovirus (Ad5PTDf35). Could go here or in oncolytic virus. Is splitting out adenoviruses useful or should we split oncolytic virus further ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)